A series of orders on lower-court rulings on Tuesday suggests to the Associated Press that Hobby Lobby might not be quite as narrow as some may think

◼ Supreme Court lets stand several rulings blocking enforcement of HHS mandate - HotAir

The mantra after the announcement of the 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, other than the Left’s shrieking over falling skies and theocracies, has been this: It was narrowly decided. That analysis springs from Justice Samuel Alito’s mention of Hobby Lobby’s status as a closely-held corporation, and the narrow number of contraceptive methods that the retailer chose to reject. That gave some hope that other cases involving broader rejection of contraception coverage might be more problematic in later cases....

The ACLJ ◼ announced yesterday that the Court has granted a reversal for one of their cases, Gilardi v HHS, after a partial defeat in the DC Circuit:

In the wake of yesterday’s blockbuster Hobby Lobby decision striking down the HHS Mandate, today the Supreme Court granted our petition for review in the case of Gilardi, v. HHS, and denied the government’s petition in our case of Korte v. HHS. In Gilardi, the Court vacated the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (see report of decision here) and sent the case back to the lower court to apply the Hobby Lobby decision to the facts of the Gilardi case. In Korte, the Court’s action today leaves in place the resounding victory we achieved at the Seventh Circuit (see report of decision here.)
The district court refused to order an injunction against enforcement of the mandate in Gilardi, which would have cost the business owner $14 million in penalties for refusing to provide abortifacient contraceptives to his employees (all of whom can buy them on their own, of course).

All of these orders make clear that Hobby Lobby is not just a fluke. The Supreme Court appears ready to apply the ruling on a broad basis with for-profit businesses, even those who refuse to cover any contraceptive method at all. That would suggest that any attempt to impose the mandate on explicitly religious organizations seems to have a couple of strikes against it at the Court already, even with the so-called “accommodation” offered as a compromise. The Supreme Court clearly takes the RFRA and the First Amendment seriously on this point.