The Purpose Driven Sentence – Rick Warren Exposes the Flaw in Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to the ACA

In an op-ed in Saturday’s Washington Post, Pastor Rick Warren claims that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act violates the religious freedom of the Green family that owns the multibillion-dollar, for-profit corporation called Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  Much has been written about why this is not so (including here by my colleague David Gans), but now Warren’s op-ed itself unwittingly exposes the gaping hole in the Greens’ legal theory.   According to Warren:

“Two years ago, the Greens’ commitment to practicing their religious convictions in their family business required that they object to just a few of the contraceptives the government requires providing to employees under the Affordable Care Act.”

“The government requires providing”?  Requires of whom?  Rather awkward writing by a best-selling author.  A more clearly written sentence explaining what the ACA actually does would say:

“Two years ago, the Greens’ commitment to practicing their religious convictions in their family business required that they object to just a few of the contraceptives the government requires that Hobby Lobby provide to its employees under its group health insurance plan.”

Warren’s carefully crafted sentence slides right over the fact that the ACA imposes no legal obligations on the Greens themselves, only on the corporate entity Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  

This is hardly a distinction without a difference.  Individuals who own corporations are given many privileges that individuals running an unincorporated business simply do not enjoy, such as immunity from personal liability for the debts and obligations of the business, which is why so many business owners choose to incorporate.  

The Greens themselves made that choice and elected to incorporate Hobby Lobby Stores.   Now, however, they would like Hobby Lobby to enjoy the privileges of incorporation but without all of the obligations imposed on other for-profit corporations.  That seems a pretty clear sentence to write.  

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes