Rejecting plaintiffs' claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court held that "secular, for-profit corporations neither exercise nor practice religion." It went on to reject the claim that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the business owner's practice of religion:
Briscoe claims a substantial burden based on what his companies must do, rather than what he himself must do. The AHCA’s mandate does not prevent Briscoe from personally exercising his religion.... [A]ny burden Briscoe claims on his ability to exercise his religion based on his companies’ compliance with the AHCA mandate, is slight and attenuated. Further, Briscoe’s argument implicitly requests that I disregard the distinction between a corporation and its officers and owners. Briscoe cannot use corporate status to shield himself from liability and at the same use it as a sword to assert an RFRA claim.The court also rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise, free speech and Establishment Clause challenges.