How did the Supreme Court determine that Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs were sincerely held?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court did not independently investigate or challenge the sincerity of the owners' religious beliefs. Instead, the Court accepted the Greens' stated belief that providing insurance coverage for four specific contraceptive methods—which they considered to be abortifacients—would be tantamount to facilitating abortion and thus inconsistent with their Christian faith.1

The Court’s analysis focused on whether the government’s mandate imposed a "substantial burden" on the exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). By ruling that closely held for-profit corporations are "persons" capable of exercising religion, the Court determined that the mandate forced the owners to choose between violating their religious convictions or facing significant financial penalties. The Court maintained that it is not the role of the judiciary to question the reasonableness or the theological accuracy of a plaintiff's sincerely held religious belief, even when that belief conflicts with scientific consensus regarding the nature of the contraceptive methods in question.21