Corporate Accountability

Hobby Lobby: CAC Attorneys In Supreme Court This Morning React To Argument

SUPREME COURT PLAZA, Washington, DC – Minutes following the conclusion of oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores at the U.S. Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center attorneys, who led the drafting of a “friend of the court” brief in the case on the side of the government, issued the following reaction:


“As Solicitor General Verrilli argued repeatedly,” said CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra, “never in our Nation’s history has a commercial enterprise been granted an exemption from a neutral law when that exemption would harm the rights of others. The Solicitor General put the rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees front and center, while the lawyer for Hobby Lobby tried to sweep them under the rug.


“As made clear from the first question asked by Justice Sotomayor,” Wydra continued, “this case is about more than contraception. If Hobby Lobby prevails, businesses could try to avoid paying for medical treatments like vaccines and blood transfusions, and avoid important legal protections for family leave and against sex discrimination. This clearly concerned the Justices, and Hobby Lobby’s lawyer, Paul Clement, really had no answer for it.”


“The big question at the heart of the case,” said CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans, “is whether Hobby Lobby’s owners will be entitled to impose their religious beliefs on Hobby Lobby’s employees and deny them federal rights critical to women’s health. Employees,” Gans said, “should not have to check their personal liberty and human dignity at the workplace door.”






CAC case page for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby:




Constitutional Accountability Center ( is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.



More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze