Korte v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception.

Grote Industries, LLC v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception.

Domino's Farms Corp. v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Various secular, for-profit businesses with religious owners have filed lawsuits asserting that they cannot include contraception coverage in employee health plans without violating, among other things, their free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 
 
Domino’s Farms is a for-profit property management corporation based.

Annex Medical, Inc. v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception.

Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Various secular, for-profit businesses with religious owners have filed lawsuits asserting that they cannot include contraception coverage in employee health plans without violating, among other things, their free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 
 
Eden Foods is a for-profit natural-food corporation.

Beckwith Electric Co. v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception.

Tanco v. Haslam

In 2006, Tennessee amended its state constitution to limit the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and also prohibited the recognition of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in other states. Proponents of the amendment grounded their support in biblical terms. Representative Bill Dunn, one of the amendment’s most prominent supporters, went so far as to write a newspaper article justifying the amendment using quotations from Scripture. 
 
In October 2013, three same-sex couples sued to invalidate Tennessee’s marriage ban.

Bourke v. Beshear

In 1998, the Kentucky legislature passed a law limiting the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and prohibited the recognition of marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in other states. Eight years later, the state amended its constitution to codify these prohibitions.

Henry v. Himes

Ohio amended its state constitution in 2004 to restrict the legal definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman, and further prohibited the recognition of a legal relationship that “approximate[s] the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” Support for the amendment came mostly from religious organizations, and their arguments were couched in explicitly religious terms. In February 2014, several same-sex couples and an adoption agency challenged Ohio’s marriage ban.

DeBoer v. Snyder

Michigan law does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children. A same-sex couple with adopted children initially challenged this law in January 2012, and later expanded their lawsuit to challenge the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Adopted in November 2004 by popular referendum, the amendment limits the state’s recognition of marriage to that between “one man and one woman.” Support for the amendment came largely from religious leaders, and proponents couched their arguments in religious terms.

Pages