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.
It seems we have become a nation of men after all [4 men.]
Dear Nick S. now we will have some Bible Thumping corproate CEO telling Cngress what it can and cannot pass and what it can and cannot enforce. At least we could refuse to vote for a bible thumping President but we can do nothing about a bible thunmping CEO.
After following the oral argument on this case, I cannot see who would believe this case would have gone the other way. The government looked like an idiot.
I’m confused…
… Can a small, limited corporation, that is Muslim owned, require all it’s female employees to wear a Hijab? Even if some women aren’t Muslim?
… Can a small, limited corporation, that is Christian owned, require all it’s female employees to forego birth control? Even if some women aren’t Christian?
Now that we have classes of people defined by their religious beliefs and to whm certain privileges are granted because of those religious beleifs thanks to SCOTUS will the rest of us be relived of funding their schools, their churches and their charities through tax exemptions? My religion does not allow me to support the preaching and teaching of another religion. I need an exemption from paying my taxes.
Annie:
“What about the shipload full of people who had no health insurance? Oh yeah, screw ‘em, they didn’t matter, right?”
That is entirely false logic.
Let’s say you have a house with a termite problem. Your neighbor burns down your house and says, “Well at least I cared! I had to do SOMETHING!”
Destroying the middle class will not help the poor. The middle class cannot take a financial hit of an increase in health care costs by $6000/person/year and an increase of $6,0000/year in premiums, for example. Wasn’t this sold as supposed to save families $2500/year and prevent people from going bankrupt for health care costs? Well, whoops. Guess that plan is moot.
You are well aware that I have explained before that in addition to hurting the middle class in the midst of a struggling economy, Obamacare is a false promise of health care for the poor. They get a shiny new, subsidized insurance card that 75% of doctors will not accept, and it does not cover the vast majority of hospitals or drug formularies. How is that supposed to be excellent healthcare for the poor? Health insurance is supposed to relieve the burden on ER overcrowding with non-emergency care of the poor that cannot be turned away. And yet it’s been proven that Medicaid actually increases non-emergency trips to the ER because of the way it’s set up.
The goal is health CARE, really, rather than health INSURANCE. I don’t care how we arrive at excellent health CARE, whether we go the insurance route, or try a raft of different approaches.
Maybe you would care more if it hit your pocket for an ADDITIONAL $12,000/year if maxes are hit.
And furthermore in my opinion Obamacare should be destroyed.
“It will embolden the religious corporations among us like Chick Filet and Hobby Lobby to fulfill their apparently misogynistic agenda.”
So any employer who doesn’t want to be forced by the government to pay for someone’s abortifacients in violation of their religious beliefs is automatically a misogynist? Wonderful logic there.
“Viva the ecclesiastical court and Cardinal Alito, too.”
Niiice. And you finish your post off with some a level of anti-Catholic bigotry that hasn’t been seen since 19th century nativism. So classy.
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/06/read-justice-ginsburgs-passionate-35-page-dissent-in-the-hobby-lobby-decision/373703/ “Addressing the majority of her colleagues — including all but one of the six men sitting on the Supreme Court — Ginsburg wrote:
In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.
The justice goes on to criticize the opinion’s interpretation of the religious freedom law, writing that “until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in ‘the commercial, profit-making world.'”
Justice, We will have to respectfully disagree. There were ramifications to that monstrous Obamacare legislation, that was passed on a partisan vote. As some of those issues arose, Obama just started changing, delaying, etc. That should concern anyone who believes in the separation of powers. Believe me, I do not want to see an Imperial Presidency established. I DO NOT want some bible thumping President reigning supreme over Congress and the courts either.
I don’t understand the surprise. Once Citizen’s United decided that corporations are people too, this was the only decision that could have been reached for the Court to remain consistent.
Mespo, I agree any Supreme who says politics do not influence their votes is a liar. That said, some are more political than others. Understand, I look upon this as a macro victory. The specific issue regarding morning after pills is not high on the list of which concerns me. I am quite liberal on social issues. We agree the winds are blowing, only we disagree on the direction. That may be because they’re swirling. I always had my players check the wind by tossing grass in the air every inning when it was a windy day. They can change often, and abruptly.
I want to hear what legal proponents of this ruling have to say but my gut feeling is that this ruling is part of annulling the US as a secular state. Religious beliefs should not have sway in a secular nation. Secular law should be the floor of what any religion can do to people in our nation. Otherwise, religious laws become superior and can be enforced over secular law, even on those who do not hold the particular beliefs of that religion.
Max-1–I am going to join your church!
What Mespo said!
Good question Bob, Esq. I see this decision as a continuation of the Supremes pushing the corporate take over of the government, not matter what logic is employed.
Justice Holmes
SCOTUS should now read…
Supreme
Corporates
Of
The
United
States
Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
Praise GOD!
Nick S. I love you man but I am against corporate intrusion into my life and I am against people being allowed to use the corproate form to avoid liability and then piercing it to claim a religious exemption to a law. SCOTUS has opened the door to some really nasty stuff. What is next a religious exemption for honor killings? SCOTUS has lost all legitimacy with this ruling.
So now there are two categories of corporations: Closely-held corporations are people with respect to the religious clause of the First Amendment; other corporations aren’t. But both types are people with respect to the free speech clause of the same amendment. Mind-boggling.
Oops,
My deeply held religious belief says it is immoral to support the murder of innocent people via drones and boots on the ground OR special military advisors OR a half a billion dollars of US taxpayers money along with military supplies and equipment to military regimes i.s. Egypt.
nick:
You revolutionary, you. The country isn’t primed for revolution. Obama is not in free fall and the sky is still above us. Relax! Bask in your win today and even as you do think about demographics and the next election that will eventually depose this ecclesiastical gang of justices. The future’s bright for my side –unless you conservative guys go all Jefferson Davis on us and we all know how that will work out. Keep repeating Arthur Kent’s line: “Demographics is destiny.” And know in your heart of hearts that as crazy as it may seem today, the SCOTUS reads newspapers and can tell which way the wind is blowing.
Karen S
I think there is a distinct difference between “serving in wars” and funding war.
Sort of like how there’s a difference between “taking a contraceptive” vs. paying for your contraception meds. YES?
I’m with doglover on this one… No more taxes for wars!