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.
A lot of the indignation to the birth control mandate here seems to be based on the idea that sex might be an optional yet enjoyable human activity for some people; the horror! If only sex were an unpleasant chore, we wouldn’t need to make a distinction between birth control and prostate exams. Is sexual activity just a hobby of the amoral and not be considered as another facet of a persons health? This is about peoples desire to slut shame and disprove of peoples private activities, not a thing to do with religious freedom.
http://youtu.be/mudzwomcKKA
Annie, So if babies are not a disease, then what is a women trying to cure by taking contraception for sex purposes? Nothing. They are having recreational sex, which is fine, but we shouldn’t have to pay for their social life. If it is prescribed for other reasons, than I’m fine with it. Pay for your choices!
the reason health care costs increased was a direct result of a controled market and a disconnect between consumers and costs and the cost to pay for those who are uninsured.
It was caused by government intervention. Obamacare isnt going to fix the problem. From what I hear, doctors are being paid less for their services.
I can reduce cost if I dictate prices. That only works for a while though, just ask Dick Nixon.
Jim, I had four babies, I surely didn’t consider them a disease. If you are trying to imply that limiting how many children a woman has, has nothing to do with her general health you are very mistaken. Your arguments are disgusting and don’t make the point you think they do.
Annie babe, If I need something I don’t ask for others to pay for my actions. You have no argument other than deflection. Why don’t you want to pay for my hockey gear? Are babies a disease? You never answer these questions.
mespo:
“That said, bankruptcy still beats dying to most humans but I’m not sure that rule applies to conservatives where your self-worth is your net worth.”
what are the statistics on this? How many people who had health care went bankrupt, how many had policies with a cap which they chose to purchase due to lower premiums. How many people who dont have any health insurance have died without going bankrupt?
Its all risk management. If you have cancer in your family tree, you better buy the most expensive insurance. Your health isnt my responsibility and my health is not your responsibility. If you need to work a second job to afford health insurance, well get your a$$ out there and do it. The single mother of 3 working 2 jobs should not be expected to pay for your health care.
This case would not have been brought if the Constitution had not been nullified. Citizens have the right to conduct business in all industries privately and government has no right to interfere in any business or industry.
The ACA and all industries must be conducted in the private sector including those of education, healthcare and charity.
There can be no conflict with the Constitution when activities occur in the private sector. There can be no legitimate complaint if religious persons and consumers can chose alternatives. No religious person or consumer is compelled to transact with any private business when activity is conducted in the private sector. Conflict resolution exists through competition in the free markets of the private sector.
The Preamble limits government to security and infrastructure while securing the endeavors, businesses and industries, conducted in the free markets of the private sector without governmental interference, as the “blessings of liberty” to citizens. The Preamble was an expression of the foundation or context of America; a communication of what the Founders created and understood to pre-exist before the Constitution – most importantly that government is limited to security and infrastructure and that the “blessings of liberty” are the citizens’.
The Fifth amendment establishes the right to private property. The right to personal or moveable property (i.e. money) was God-given and existed before government was constituted. The government has the power to tax only to fund the limited governmental operations established in the Preamble. Taking private property from one man to give private property to another violates private property rights. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional.
Any and all laws that adversely impact the establishment or exercise of religious beliefs by citizens is unconstitutional.
It is impossible for the establishment or exercise of religion to conflict with businesses and industries in the competitive private sector.
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
P.S. Unintended consequences of the deviation from and the nullification of the Constitution resulting from the usurpation of power by the SCOTUS to “legislate from the bench” in concert with its political allies and ideological benefactors have resulted in an indecipherable soup of legal concepts in constant need of remedy and reinterpretation. It began with the arrogant dismissal of the Preamble – the Intent.
Various, arbitrary and subjective “opinions” based on political bias and ideology nullify the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Nine justices can only make one correct reading of the literal words of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without objective, unanimous decisions by the SCOTUS, these foundational documents are lost.
Darren Smith
LOL another one hit the dust… you’ll see why. But why?
Darren Smith
LOL… one would be enough.
Thanks.
For some reason, tax exempt + hobby lobby + religious organizations, triggered something…
Max, I restored 3:10.
Yeah, you are right. Something is stoking the WordPress Vortex of Doom’s jittery algorithms.
Today I’m very happy for hobby lobby. Can you please do a story about Obamacare whistleblower in wa state! The dems have decided to retaliate yet another whistleblower. Therefore I will fight for Ms.Pattersen all the way! So tired of hearing about yet another whistleblower in the news. WA states 1989 Brenda Hill whistleblower law is named after me 1st in the nation. Please Google Brenda Hill wa state whistleblower stories
freedom got a boost today.
Jim honey, why don’t you give up sex to prove how much you don’t need it first before spouting off about women’s sexuality. You are veering off into the typical troglodyte’s territory.
Hobby Lobby… Re|!g!0u$ 0rg?
+@x Exe|\/|p+ Re|!g!0u$ 0rga|\|!z@+!0n
… maybe huffpost spelling will go through?
Annie, It’s kind of sad that you think the women’s vote can be bought for so little as ~$10/month.
Karen,
Is Hobby Lobby a tax exempt religious organization?
Max-1, I restored your comment at 2:59.
Karen, I can’t get over how anti-male the likes of Annie are since they don’t want to pay for my hockey equipment. It should be free since, one, I want to play it and two, I need it for protection from getting hurt. Just like the women needs free contraception to protect them from getting pregnant. It’s just so wrong that I have to pay for things that I choose to do.
Karen S wrote “All insurance should be on the individual market”
Would that be under the previous rules, i.e. allowing insurance companies to deny coverage?
SWM, yes indeed it will. It was fortunate that the decision was made just months before the election. Women and minorities have a lot to come out to vote for this go round.