The U.S. Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 2013, revolved around the issue of whether for-profit corporations must provide insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite religious objections from company owners. The Green family, who own Hobby Lobby and other businesses, argued that providing such coverage violated their Christian beliefs against certain forms of birth control considered to be abortifacients. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby stating that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs. This ruling was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which prohibits government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is done through least restrictive means.

In the dissenting opinion for Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's ruling was a radical departure from precedent and could open up a Pandora’s box of religious exemptions to federal laws. She contended that corporations should not be treated as persons capable of exercising religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential implications on employees' rights and health coverage, particularly women's reproductive healthcare services covered by Affordable Care Act (ACA). She also warned against allowing businesses to opt out of any law they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs which may lead to discrimination or denial of fair treatment under various pretexts. In her view, this decision could undermine ACA’s objective: providing affordable health care for all Americans.