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.
i’m curious if the supreme court can say in their decisions that it can not be used for any other rulings or case law.
and mespo, was not aware you looked like burt lancaster
The American Supreme court just voted that a corporation could refuse to cover drugs which cause abortion when the drugs in question DO NOT CAUSE ABORTION. Is ANYONE aware of how IGNORANT it makes America look when this kind of judgement is passed by THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND? It’s saying you can object to medication and refuse to cover it simply because you BELIEVE it does something that IT DOESN’T DO! Ideology aside, this is a disgrace on an EDUCATIONAL level.
mespo, I realize we need balance if our culture is to survive. So, to counteract the Elmer Gantry types, we need the counterweight of atheists. Some zealots bother me, some I like. You are the latter. Ralph Nader has always been one of my favorite zealots. Vince Lombardi, Ted Williams, they are found in all aspects of culture. I’m just one of the run of the mill people in the middle, taking it all in.
Paul
I tried it all. The funny thing was that the first three days ice helped. Then salt water rinses every 3-5 minutes for two days… Then ice and salt became too painful.
Karen,
Yes, lucky it didn’t turn into a bone infection. There were other complications too… I have a drill bit stuck in one root resting on the nerve so pressure on the tooth still hurts… 🙂
So anyway… It could be better, it being health CARE and accessability to it. I’ve lived it albeit briefly. I can not imagine how chronic cases and patients manage and tolerate the beauracy behind it.
Max-1 – I am not sure how old you are, but they younger you are the less likely they are to prescribe pain meds to you.
I disagree that the ruling is a major blow.When an enemy is in a position of power and hates your guts and is willing to do anything to hurt you, the rulings are EXPECTED to be adverse ones.The last thing you can call the Roberts court is a fair and just adjudicating body.In this case they have blatantly ignored the facts that (1) we are are dealing with medical problems,eg, almost 58% of the women who use contraceptives ALSO are using them to help resolve medical problems;(2) without the use of contraceptives women are likely to be at risk of having more children than they can afford or raise well and to have their income-essential careers jeopardized;(3) the rights of actual human beings are being subordinated to a fictional “person” called a corporation–and all for the support of a favored litigant and the reinforcement of certain political beliefs.In short under the aegis of the Roberts court,more than one typically found in other periods, when a ruling comes down, the first question we must ask is what are the political loyalties of the judge— its not the laws themselves that are the basic determining factor but the beliefs and allegiances of the judges that enable us to understand the decisions.—we now have a democratic and a separate republican “constitution”, not just one single one!
Binyamin – this is a religious rights case, not a women’s rights case. It is very narrowly drawn.
Steve H:
“The government can’t run anything, can’t be trusted to protect our rights.”
******************
Yeah, Steve H let Wall Street do it!! They have all the answers. Do you believe any of the stuff that comes out of your keyboard?
nick:
Why not? It’s fun skewering the religious dogma and delusion which you yourself don’t subscribe to. Anyone basing anything on their interpretation of a First Century book of knowledge has already lost the argument in my mind –even that venerable gang of pols residing at 1 First St NE, Washington, DC.
Mespo, You are an Elmer Gantry atheist. You are “all in” my man. Balls to the wall. Pedal to the medal.
Paul, The Act was signed into law by Clinton w/ strong bipartisan support.
Paul C. Schulte
mespo – you do realize that the Court was upholding the Religious Toleration Act …”
************
I’ve heard that line before in the Repub talking points. Let me quote you from an author you may recognize: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” You call it irony. I call it blasphemy.
mespo – are you saying I am wrong? So far all I have seen from your end is a lot of anti-religious garble.
Karen s:
“mespo – you’ve quoted Old Testament, which was replaced with New Testament.”
*****************
Ah, and which fantasy religion holds that tenet. The fundies say all the Bible is the unerring word of God. Catholics say the Old Testament was fulfilled by the New Testament, and that hodgepodge of Protestant sects either accept the Old Testament as guidance or follow it lock, stock and barrel. Of course, the Jews believe it’s the only one worth reading. Muslims have their own fairy tale which plagiarizes it, and the Far East crowd has no idea why the Hell we care about this First Century playbook. And lastly, the disingenuous discount it when they want to and hold it up as a divine guide when it suits them. Where should I put you?
Paul – oh my gosh, that’s true, right? And that one of the religious tolerance laws arose because Native Americans wanted the right to use peyote in religious ceremonies.
I do wish people had more freedoms today. There’s just too much intrusiveness from the government, all “for our own good.”
I say the answer to all this kerpufle is to remove employers entirely from the insurance market. Give employees a medical flexible spending plan, and they can buy whatever policy meets their needs. And bring choice back to those policies.
mespo – you’ve quoted Old Testament, which was replaced with New Testament.
And how do you know what principles their church follows? If they’re literal and fundamentalist, or not? Who are you to say how someone follows their faith? Are you actually going to say that since no one stones anyone anymore, they are not true Christians?
Again, false logic . . .
mespo – you do realize that the Court was upholding the Religious Toleration Act written by Ted Kennedy, lion of the liberals and progressives? The irony is outstanding. 😉
Max – ouch ouch ouch! You’re lucky you didn’t get a bone infection.
Barkingdog
I think the “blow” refers to 30 SCOTUS cases this Admin has failed to defend… ER lost.
I think if Hobby Lobby is centered on Biblical principles so as to justify special exemptions they need to live by that book. So therefore:
1. All loaned money is given interest free. ( Exodus 22:25-27 )
2. No garments or textiles of two different threads (Leviticus 19:19)
3. Employees using God’s name in vain even when dropping merchandise on their feet must be immediately put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)
4. No touching of leather goods. (Leviticus 11:7)
5. Homosexual employees are to be put to death.(Leviticus 20:13)
6. Adulterous employees are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 )
7. No fat customers allowed (Leviticus 3:17 )
8. No uncapped females or torn jeans by customers (Leviticus 10:6 )
9. No customers or employees with haircuts or trimmed beards (Leviticus 19:27 -28
10. No loans over seven years and if so they are to be forgiven (Deuteronomy 15:1-23)
11. No stores near churches (Matthew 21:12)
Let’s see how religious these “religious corporations” really are in the real world.
Karen.
Hospital ER do turn away patients. I’ve been turned away. 2011 I was turned away because the dentist I was seeing felt my abcess tooth could be treated as an open ablation for 72 hrs, over the weekend (Fr-Su), and prescribed me ZERO pain relief. Now mind you, that Thursday he opened my tooth was already day #5 of no sleep due to tooth irritation. And when I say no sleep… I mean maybe 15 minute intervals between 12 or so hours of ice, ice baby!
So, because I was under the care of another doctor, isn’t that a nice way of them putting it, they refused to issue me any pain relief.
I told another ER nurse friend of mine, after the fact, and she was flabbergasted! I think I had a malpractice suit and an ER case but didn’t peruse either. Too poor! Too bad, I guess.
So no, not all hospital ERs accept just anybody…
Max-1 – next abcess take excedrin until your ears ring. When they stop ringing take until they start again. That will kill the pain with OTC
Well I’m inclined to agree with you that its shouldn’t be an employers responsibility to provide health insurance, however, legally, it is.
Personally I’d prefer some kind of government run health insurance where all health care will be covered by taxes. I really hate this idea that I’m forced to do business with a for profit corporation that takes a cut off the top. Paying taxes is an easier pill to swallow. So basically, I’m one of those liberals who doesn’t like Obamacare because I think it doesn’t go far enough!
John: “Personally I’d prefer some kind of government run health insurance where all health care will be covered by taxes.”
We can model it after the Veterans Administration health care system. I hear a veteran administrator of the VA is available for the top leadership post. They and he did a great job killing people through incompetence. Or we can merge it with the USPS; health care 24 hours a day, except holidays and Sundays. How about getting Lois Lerner to decide your care based on your voter registration? If the government owns your health data, do you think the NSA will stay away?
The government can’t run anything, can’t be trusted to protect our rights.
BarkinDog wrote “I left a packet of condoms in the bathroom for any of the employees to pick up and use”
Yeah, but they were dog-sized, right? And how do you put them on with paws? Wait, don’t tell me, I don’t really want to know.