Missing Definition In Hobby Lobby Case Leaves Big Question For Regulators

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby found that some companies, “closely held corporations,” did not have to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees, but the Court failed to define what constitutes closely held. In Hobby Lobby’s case, all five shareholders – members of the same family – agreed to invoke their religious principles in making corporate decisions, which appeared to sway the Court’s decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said, “the idea that unrelated shareholders – including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders – would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable,” hence the “closely held” language. But if Hobby Lobby is an outlier, how can regulators determine what other companies lie out there with it?