Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores case, a matter that may decide whether of not the religious beliefs of the shareholders of a corporation allow the corporation itself protection from the provisions of federal statutes.
Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, employing over 16,000 people, which is claiming an Affordable Care Act exemption that protects religious organizations from having to provide contraception as part of its employer-based health insurance plan.
The laws of incorporation are generally in place to protect the shareholders from personal liability and in this case, the Green family is seeking to claw back their personal right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees while leaving the other protections of incorporation intact.
The hearing will start at 10am Eastern and will include 2 hours of arguments, expanded from the normal 90 minutes.
The lawyer for Hobby Lobby is Paul D. Clement and the lawyer for the United States government is Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. Over 2 dozen briefs have been filed in support of the government’s position and over 5 dozen in support of Hobby Lobby and the other party, Conestoga Wood Specialties. Two additional briefs were filed that take no side but which discuss the constitutional issues involved.
UPDATE: Transcript 13-354. Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (PDF)
From Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUSblog:
For the first time since the broad new federal health care law partially survived its most sweeping constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court nearly two years ago, the Affordable Care Act comes up for a new test before the Justices. This time, the Court will be examining whether the government may enforce against private businesses owned by religiously devout owners the requirement that employee health plans provide no-cost coverage for women’s pregnancy-related services, including birth control.
More …
More from SCOTUSblog:
At the level of their greatest potential, the two cases raise the profound cultural question of whether a private, profit-making business organized as a corporation can “exercise” religion and, if it can, how far that is protected from government interference. The question can arise – and does, in these cases – under either the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause or under a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993.
In a manner of speaking, these issues pose the question – a topic of energetic debate in current American political and social discourse – of whether corporations are “people.” The First Amendment protects the rights “of the people,” and the 1993 law protects the religious rights of “persons.” Do profit-making companies qualify as either?
Aside from whether corporations do have any religious rights, as such, the cases also raise the question whether the religious rights of their owners – real people, who undeniably can act according to their faith – are violated by the requirement that their companies obey the contraceptive mandate. Ordinarily, in business law, corporations are separate from their owners, but the owners in these cases resist that notion, at least so far as the owners’ religious views actually shape the business of their companies. […]
Only one thing, perhaps, is certain as the argument in this case approaches: whatever the Court decides, it will not decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act. The nation’s politics, and many of its legislatures (including Congress), are absorbed with debates over whether to keep the law, to amend it, to render it unenforceable, or to repeal it altogether. None of that depends upon the outcome of this case.
The Court has not been asked to strike down any part of the law, and it almost certainly won’t volunteer to do so. All that is at issue is who must obey the contraceptive mandate.
When the hearing concludes, the transcript will be prepared and can be found here: SCOTUS Argument Transcripts.
~
New York Times: Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty
“This week, the owners of two secular, for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees – by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act. […]
The Supreme Court has consistently resisted claims for religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and apply broadly when the exemptions would significantly harm other people, as this one would. To approve it would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another – or over nonbelievers.[…]
These companies are not religious organizations, nor are they affiliated with religious organizations. But the owners say they are victims of an assault on religious liberty because they personally disapprove of certain contraceptives. They are wrong, and the Supreme Court’s task is to issue a decisive ruling saying so. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the owners trying to impose their religious beliefs on thousands of employees.”
Their conclusion is important: “If there is a Supreme Court decision in favor of these businesses, the ripple effect could be enormous. One immediate result would be to encourage other companies to seek exemptions from other health care needs, like blood transfusions, psychiatric care, vaccinations or anesthesia.” It would not be a stretch to think that vaccination coverage would be fair game as there is a definite religionist bent to the anti-vaxxer crowd. And mental health covers so many aspects of human life, one could easily see that allowing employers to cherry pick which types of mental health issues deserve counseling and which ones people just need to “get over” would be ripe for abuse.
One thing for sure: this case will have a “ripple effect” regardless of how it is decided.
~
Update: From the DNC …
28 comments