The Supreme Court finished its term with its usual dramatic flair with the release of the long-waited decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (which is consolidated with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius). The two cases represent a classic split in the circuits with the Tenth Circuit agreeing with Hobby Lobby as to the religious claims of the company while the Third Circuit ruled against such claims by Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. The Court ruled that the Hobby Lobby does have religious rights, but limited the decision to closely-held corporations. Where Citizen’s United recognized that corporations have free speech rights like individuals, Hobby Lobby would do the same thing for religious rights. I will be running a column in the Los Angeles Times in the morning not just addressing this ruling but, once again, highlighting what I consider a far more important case that will be decided just a couple blocks away in the D.C. Circuit — Halbig v. Sebelius. I will be discussing the decisions today at CNN starting at 10 am and continuing to the discussion at 1 pm with Wolf Blitzer.
Hobby Lobby is a fascinating case involving the retail arts and craft chain founded by David Green and owned by his family, which also happen to be Evangelical Christians. The Greens actually do not object to all of the 20 forms of birth control under the ACA. However, they are religiously opposed to supplying four methods: morning-after pills Plan B and Ella as well as two kinds of inter-uterine devices (or IUDs). (The Conestoga company is smaller and owed by Hahn family, who are Mennonite Christians) At a running fine of $100 per employee, Hobby Lobby estimates that the federal mandate would cost it about $1.3 million a day, or roughly $475 million a year.
The religious beliefs of the family are formally integrated into their company: Green family members signed a formal commitment to run the stores according to Christian religious principles, including closing on Sunday, advertising their religious orientation. The company even plays religious music inside their stores.
The Greens challenged the provisions under the and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which imposes a high standard of strict scrutiny for the government to meet when a neutral law “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion”. (Note some amicus briefs suggest that the mandatory plan should also be barred for these purpose under the Establishment Clause). In 2013, United States District Court Judge Joe Heaton granted the company a temporary exemption from the contraceptive-providing mandate. (Conestoga directly raises free exercise arguments).
In an interesting wrinkle, an April article in Mother Jones alleged that Hobby Lobby’s employee retirement plan has more than $73M invested in mutual funds which include manufacturers of some fo the very contraception devices or drugs cited in the complaint.
The decision has sweeping application – well beyond these companies or the 49 for-profit corporations that have claimed such exemptions. The ruling addresses the very essence of a religious claim and the very essence of a corporate entity.
Closely-held corporations are not as limited as it might seem. I agree with Ginsberg that the implications are sweeping. The closely-held corporations represent a huge number of businesses. As I mentioned on CNN, the large corporations are the least likely to demand such exemptions. There are millions of family businesses that may not object not just to the ACA but renew objections to discrimination laws that force such businesses to serve same-sex weddings or engage in other activities that violate their religious beliefs. This is much like Heller and the recognition of individual gun rights. We are still working out the details on how far that goes years after the decision.
This is a major blow to the Administration which in the last ten days have been found to have violated the fourth amendment and privacy and then found to be in violation of the separation of powers and now found in violation of the first amendment and religious freedom.
Why is everything in the news touted as a “blow to the Obama Administration”? Yesterday all the media folks were saying that the cell phone case was a blow to Obama. He probably applauded it. He has a smartphone just like Alito and all those guys on the bench.
I did go into a Hobby Lobby store today and I left a packet of condoms in the bathroom for any of the employees to pick up and use.
BarkinDog – it is always a blow to the Obama Administration because they argued against Hobby Lobby. And up to today they were 0-13 in unanimous cases decided against this term. They are having a really really bad year.
Karen, I don’t agree with you that hobby lobby ever had the “rights not to pay for what they consider abortion”. They accepted corporate status and receive various financial protections and in return they they agreed to certain obligations (higher tax rate for example). They have an obligation to pay for health care of their employees and it’s not up to them what encompasses health care; it’s up to policy makers to decide that and they have. We’re not talking about small private bushiness here, these are companies that have formed entities distinct from the individuals who founded them.
“Liberals would rather that they get rid of all healthcare for their employees, and pay $475 million in fines annually, than to accept that they provide 16 out of 20 contraceptives.”
Ok here we go again, liberals want this, liberals want that. I’m a liberal and everything you say about liberals sounds completely foreign to me. I want hobby lobby (and any business) to provide health care to its employees as they are required by law and whatever health care that employee wants should be between them and their doctor. I don’t want hobby lobby to pay the fine, I want them to follow the law like everyone else. The fine is to motivate them to follow the law. What you said is as ridiculous as me saying conservatives want the death penalty so they can kill people legally instead of to deter or punish serious crimes.
That hobby lobby harbors some crazy belief that a few forms of birth control are the same as abortion, and because they call that belief a religious one, that’s no reason to excuse them from the law. If we allow people to violate various laws because they harbor some strange idea in their heads; I’m sure you can imagine some pretty absurd results.
John – there is no reason that Hobby Lobby should have to give their employees health insurance if they do not want to.
I don’t think I’m being selective; my philosophy is consistent. I don’t support outlawing guns. Actually, I’ve never even met a liberal who was for outlawing all guns although if you pay attention to the he NRA, they’d would have you believe otherwise.
Now, if you want to know what a real liberal thinks, I do think some gun controls laws are needed to strike a balance with public saftey; that is to say your rights should be limited to protect another persons more fundamental right (to not be shot). The idea that insane people can’t buy guns or a person not be allowed to access the pinnacle of military killing technology sits just fine with me. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that my right to own hand grenades and surface to air missiles has been restricted despite it probably being great fun to play with those things.
“The right of a corporation to spend it’s money advancing it’s shareholders interests?” Ok now you’re just making stuff up and ascribing it to the liberal boogieman you have living in your head. The corporation has every right to peruse a profit, but the question is where should the law define the limits of legal behavior and policy makers need to take more into account than just that corporations desire to make money. But you know this.
Karen S wrote “What century did this happen in?”
Sorry, I was a little vague. This was in the first half of the 20th Century, perhaps the 30s or 40s. That generation is long dead, so I cannot ask them exactly why the leg was not set correctly, but the story about him being crippled was told many times at the dinner table.
By the way, I answered your question in “RESTORING BALANCE AMONG THE BRANCHES.” At least I think I did.
For the men who are commenting here and acting like women are the only people who have sex for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80DiqRJjog
Next time that Obama Admin should let congress pass the ACA law.
We could call it CongressCare …
Wait … you mean this was a major blow against congress?
Oh, they are low in the polls anyway.
What about the public … the people?
Who Dey?
You do not lose your right to exercise your religion when you start a small business.
For example, you can close your business on whatever day your Sabbath falls on. You can close your doors 5 times a day to face Mecca. You can require your employees have modest dress code. Or you can require your employees wear sexy outfits, such as at Hooters.
John: “I’m a liberal and I believe that a person’s rights are limited when they start interfering with another persons rights; probably the same thing you believe.” Agreed. In this case, Hobby Lobby’s rights not to pay for what they consider abortion are being infringed upon. Liberals would rather that they get rid of all healthcare for their employees, and pay $475 million in fines annually, than to accept that they provide 16 out of 20 contraceptives.
Which is more contraceptives, by the way, than has been covered by most plans.
It is reasonable to say that birth control should be covered. It is not reasonable to declare that ALL forms of birth control should be covered at no copay. Why, suddenly, as of 2014, do women need 20 different choices or they are being abused??? Have a choice in birth control is great. But demanding that anything less than 20 choices is such an absurd argument.
Now, let’s talk about restricting a woman’s rights to make healthcare choices. Obamacare drug formularies are so restrictive, that most medications are not covered. Major medications that treat MS, and keep people out of wheelchairs – not covered. And when you pay for those prescriptions out of your pocket, they don’t count a single dimes towards that astronomical deductible that this wonderful, helpful law created. If you want to see laws restricting women’s rights to make healthcare decisions, start with Obamacare.
Obamacare drug formularies are so restrictive, that most medications are not covered.
Karen that s not the ACA that is the decision of the private insurance companies. Coventry health decided this year to change their formulary, which happens every year, not just since the ACA. I had to appeal decision not to cver the 3 meds I take. one that tried to force me to change to something I had already tried years ago with no success, but finally agreed after appeals to cover at the lower cost what I had been taking for over 10 years. They wanted to change my pain med too but the appeal stopped that. My ophthalmic antibiotic ointment that I use a lot they refused to offer an alternative so I have to pay the higher cost.
This is one of the lies of the right. These prices and policies are set by the insurance companies, not the ACA.
The morning after pill and the week after pill cost $35-60. HARDLY cost prohibitive for a Hobby Lobby employee. Now, if she needs these EMERGENCY contraceptives regularly her problem is not this SCOTUS decision. The smart choices of contraception are covered. Tempest in a teapot. The slippery slope argument has some merit. But the specifics of this case, it seems those opposed to the decision are being drama queens. $35-60!!
It also makes a great case for getting “employers” out of the insurance business entirely – they have enough power over their employees’ personal lives already without intruding into this area.
Webster’s definition of “government” could include family, employers or governmental – that would be an interesting legal debate that is much needed right now.
Saucy:
“I had a relative who lived on a ranch in the West many years back. He fell off a horse (or the horse fell on him) and he broke his leg. Medical care was not available (or he could not afford it) so they set the leg as best they could.”
That’s weird. ERs cannot turn people away who cannot pay. That’s why they’re so crowded with non-emergencies.
What century did this happen in? Did he try to go to an ER, or just assumed they wouldn’t take him?
John: Don’t you think you are being selective about the “rights” you like? The right to own handguns? I’d guess [I use that word to avoid Mespo’s standard last-resort retort of “you don’t know what I’m thinking”] you think that’s a travesty. The right of a state’s population to ban (effectively) affirmative action? A travesty. The right of a corporation to spend it’s money advancing it’s shareholders interests? A travesty. The right of Congress to throttle a President’s power grab? A travesty (unless it’s a Democrat).
Have to sign off for a while to watch the Yankees win again.
Later, I’ll compare the Yankees dominance of MLB because of their money to the liberal rant about the unfairness of money in politics.
Paul I have pretty much stayed out of this absent the one post but I never said there needed to be a concensus. there you go again misstating what someone has written so that you can argue with what was not said.
My understanding is justice is to be impartial, not decided on the political leanings/biases of the justices. 5-4 fairly consistently against the president and for big business certainly smacks of bias
Paul C:
They did: Art. I, Sec. 4; Art. II Sec. 1; Art. II, Sec. 2
All religions are created equal…
… Just now, some are more equal than others’.
I am so glad the Supreme Corporates like the men…
… Viagra rules!!!
Women, your concerns don’t count…
… Ask the Supreme Corporates.
Isn’t that why they ruled against women and not men’s pills?
Steve H:
“When I’m elected President I’ll sign an executive order outlawing jerks.”
**********************
I will not ask the spiteful question that keeps recurring after the last read: ” Ok, then Steve how will you possibly serve your post from outside the country?”
I won’t. I won’t. I won’t.
Steve, do you offend yourself?
Steve H. wrote “I’d bet that more than half of the bloggers only know about the Constitution”
You really, really need to visit Turley’s other post, “RESTORING BALANCE AMONG THE BRANCHES,” and pay attention to what conservative “John” writes.
john:
How dare you approach the topic with reasoned debating points. Steve H is right. Any contrary view is just wrong and we should all just shut up and agree. It’s very conservative you know. And no barbs at his reasoning — such as it is -lest we offend his tender sensibilities.
Annie: No. Outrage over hate mongering. With conservative jerks, it’s about gays, jews and welfare cheaters. With liberal jerks, it’s about the religious, business owners, and conservatives. I’m offended by jerks.
When I’m elected President I’ll sign an executive order outlawing jerks.