Why did the Supreme Court hear Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. together with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell?

The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell because both cases involved similar legal challenges to the federal "contraceptive mandate".1

Both cases centered on whether for-profit, secular corporations could be considered "persons" capable of exercising religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The plaintiffs in both instances argued that the mandate—which required employers to provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptive methods—violated their religious beliefs.21

The Supreme Court chose to hear the cases together because lower courts had reached conflicting conclusions on the matter:
* In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that for-profit corporations could exercise religion and that the mandate imposed a substantial burden on that exercise.1
* In the Conestoga Wood Specialties case, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that for-profit, secular corporations could not engage in religious exercise for the purposes of the RFRA or the First Amendment.1