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.
Saucy – “Women take birth control pills for medical reasons other than birth control”
True enough, and I stated I’m for covering that since it for a medical reason. What was Flukes medical reason?
Annie, I never said or expected women to have one baby after another. Point to where I wrote that. You really can’t come up with one good reason why we should pay for peoples recreational activities. I’m not sure why you seem to think that is a disgusting talking point.
Paul wrote “At one point in the Catholic Church there were Abbesses who had the same powers as bishops.”
I once had an abbesses, but I had it removed.
Jim22 wrote “Your logic makes zero sense”
That’s truly amusing coming from you.
Women take birth control pills for medical reasons other than birth control:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
Riding bikes is fun. Therefor ad campaigns imploring people to wear bike helmets are, i don’t know, just outright communism.
Jim, again you are ignoring realities to spin your disgusting talking points. Pregnancy does affect a woman’s body in major ways. Multiple pregnancies have life long repercussions on women’s bodies and health. As I said before, you should abstain from sex before uttering a word about women’s sexuality. You expect women in a marriage to have one baby after another, or deny their husbands sex? You are trying to make the sex act dirty and seem to think, only single women have sex and pregnancies to prevent.
Jim, I guess I’d respond to that by saying there is a public benefit to providing birth control; Would you rather pay for peoples prenatal care when they have a pregnancy they cant afford? Hey, lets just we pretend this is a perfect world and humans don’t have sex unless they want kids.
Beers fun, I think the tax payers should have to pay for it.
Saucy, So you believe our health care should cover all sorts of non-medical items? When did I say health insurance shouldn’t be used for medical emergencies like you relatives hip? Your logic makes zero sense, but I’m sure Annie will agree with you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/30/sandra-fluke-the-hobby-lobby-case-is-an-attack-on-women/ “In the area of health care alone, the court’s decision allows companies to deny coverage of numerous health-care services. The majority opinion barely addresses this concern. Why is birth control—an uncontroversial form of care used by an astonishing number of women—different from blood transfusions and vaccines, which many individuals have religious objections to? The fact is, it’s not. This case sets a dangerous precedent and can be used in the future to go far past birth control.
The court cited the government’s ability to meet women’s need for affordable access to contraception in other ways, specifically pointing to government provision of birth control as an option. But in the current reproductive rights environment, that will never happen. Opponents of reproductive rights are trying to limit access to comprehensive women’s health care from all directions. At the federal level, they have attempted to defund Title X, which provides funding for family planning for our poorest sisters in community clinics. At the state level, in Texas for example, there are attacks on government money for contraception and clinics that offer abortion care. There is a movement to prohibit government support not only for abortion services—which, with a few exceptions, has existed for three decades—but also for emergency contraception and certain forms of birth control. Even a woman’s ability to pay for her own coverage is under attack: Some states’ exchanges and the federal exchange are prohibited from providing insurance that covers abortion care.”
Reblogged this on NEBIOLINI BANKRUPTCY BLAWG and commented:
In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court reaches pivotal decision in the exercise of religious rights by closely-held corporations.
There’s a bit of a contradiction there Steve. If the overriding conservative philosophy is to let people live their lives according to their own principles yet they they use religion as a structure to dictate approved behavior, then aren’t they in the exact same boat as the liberals you’ve described?
A new poll released just as the Supreme Court dealt significant blows to women and workers finds that Americans’ confidence in the judicial branch is at a record low.
The Gallup survey released Monday found that just 30 percent of respondents have a “great deal” or a “quite a lot” of confidence in the high court, down seven points from the 2012 survey and marking the lowest approval number for the court since Gallup first started tracking confidence in the court in 1973. The court has not received approval ratings above 40 percent since 2007, one year after George W. Bush appointee Samuel Alito’s confirmation.
The poll was conducted June 5 through June 8, well before Monday’s high profile decisions were handed down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-poll_n_5544322.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D495643
John, I’m not approaching this from any moral high ground. Quite the opposite. My point is do whatever you want, just don’t make me pay for your recreational activities by pretending there is some medical reason. Why on Earth would I pay for anyone’s private sex life? Hockey is enjoyable to play. Are you willing to pay for my equipment? Yes, this question is as dumb as Sandra Fluke needing me to pay for her birth control.
This is another major blow to the idea of blind and impartial justice when the right leaning 5 consistently rule on their political leaning.
leejcaroll – if the Constitution required a consensus they would have put it in there.
Back at 2 PM, Justice Holmes pretty much echoed Hitler. All you have to do is replace “religious” with “Jewish”. There is a reason that the Constitution wants to separate the government from “establishing” religion; and Justice Holmes shows us why we can’t trust government with regulating religion.
The driving conservative philosophy is to let people live their own lives according to the choices they make with minimal government intrusion and with proscribed government regulation and protection. For more, see: The Constitution.
The liberal philosophy is to regulate or outlaw behavior they don’t like or agree with. Conservatives respect religion as it gives a framework for behavior. Liberals hate religion because liberals want to be the ones to define acceptable behavior.
SPOILER ALERT: The liberals will now attempt to discredit religion by pointing to the abuses of the Crusades, radical Islam, the Catholic Church. They are advised that their Emperor Obama goes to church, as does Saint Hillary.
Annie, just ignore jimbo. He has the logic of a selfish teenager. He thinks that because something is not medically necessary for survival, he should not have to pay for it.
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. It did not heal straight. When he drove his truck, he could no longer fully depress the clutch pedal and so the gears made noise. To use jimbo-logic, this was okay because my relative did not really need to have his leg set properly. He could hobble around.
I don’t want to pay for any medical procedure that makes people enjoy life more. Nothing is medically necessary other than dying so free funerals are the only thing the government should be doling out. /s
http://prospect.org/article/slut-shaming-not-winning-strategy
Slut shaming, wasn’t not a winning strategy in 2012, it will be even less of one in 2014 and 2016. So Jim, just keep it up, it will only work to the benefit of Democrats.
At least we can all agree on one thing: Having six [6] Roman Catholic justices on a nine-member Court obviously didn’t impact this ruling in the teensiest bit.
Next up, can the Court require attorneys to take communion before pleading before the Supremes?