SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[merithyn]

So, Max? How does Canada sound now?

In a deeply divisive case pitting advocates of religious liberty against women's right's groups, the Supreme Court said today that two for profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs do not have to provide a full range of contraceptives at no cost to their employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.

In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito the court held that as applied to closely held corporations the Health and Human Services regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.

The decision is a victory for the Green family that owns the Hobby Lobby arts and crafts chain and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. The government defended the provision as an essential part of health care coverage for women.

Here's what you need to know about the decision:

What did the court rule?

The court rejected the government's claim that neither the owners nor the corporations could bring a religious liberty claim. "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga ... protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies," Alito wrote.

Alito says the court has "little trouble" concluding that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of region: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage."

What else did Alito hold in his majority opinion?

"The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest," according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law "is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."

"Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies," Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

Alito said the opinion was limited to closely held corporations: "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them. "

What did Ginsburg's dissent say?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined on the merits by Justice Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Steven Breyer.

In her dissent Ginsburg –disagreed with Alito --and worried about what other challenges might come next. :"Reading the Act expansively, as the court does, raises a host of "Me, too" questions. Can an employer in business for profit opt out of coverage for blood transfusions, vaccinations, antidepressants, or medications derived from pigs, based on the employer's sincerely held religious beliefs opposing those medical practices."

Ginsburg wrote , "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations' employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure"

She took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench.

What did Alito say about freedom of religion?

Alito: "The Hahns and the Greens believe that providing the coverage demanded by the HHS regulation is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage ... HHs has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases."

Does the law apply to corporations?

Alito: "Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies."

What are liberals and allied groups saying?

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Harris v. Quinn. Many of the basic workplace standards and protections that we take for granted as Americans are thanks to the efforts of organized labor. These benefits have been sought and achieved on behalf of all workers, regardless of whether or not they've paid union dues. I fear that this decision will seriously diminish the capacity of labor unions to represent the best interests of American workers who have fought for and won significant progress on wages, benefits and working conditions, and jeopardize the progress that has been made over the last century."

What are conservatives and allied groups saying?

"This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network, on Hobby Lobby: "The Supreme Court today upheld the liberty at the heart of the Constitution: the right to religious freedom. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious business owners just as much as it protects their employees. RFRA guarantees not just a right of religious worship or speech, but religious exercise. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed religious freedoms that literally centuries of Americans have enjoyed from even before the founding of this country.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins learned of the ruling this morning as he met with the Hahn family, founders and owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties: "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

What are prominent GOP members of Congress saying?

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex.: "Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is terrific news -- but now is no time to rest. We cannot rely on the courts alone to defend our religious liberty"

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, both individually and collectively. The notion that religious freedom belongs only to some, and even then only in private, defies our nation's traditions, our laws, and our Constitution. And as the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn: "I am extremely encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.

[Valmy]

Does this decision really say what the religious liberty crowd is saying it says?  That is really broad.  I mean you could just invent a religion to do whatever you wanted Scientology like right?

But I suspect it is much narrower than they are saying.

[Zanza]

Isn't the point of a corporation to establish a legal entity separate from the natural persons that own it?

[Valmy]

Isn't the point of a corporation to establish a legal entity separate from the natural persons that own it?

Yes and no.  It depends what is the most convenient

[Valmy]

By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them.  Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.

[The Minsky Moment]

Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis.  But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.

[derspiess]

I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way.  Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.

[derspiess]

Alito (and the rest of majority)

They just want to be closely held

[Neil]

By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them.  Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.

But that's not really how it works.  The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large.  And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.

[Valmy]

Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis.  But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.

Whether corporations are considered people or not depends on the extent it would benefit the corporation

[merithyn]

By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them.  Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.

But that's not really how it works.  The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large.  And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.

Yep.

If women were unanimous on these things, Hobby Lobby would have closed two years ago when this all first came up.

[derspiess]

I'm trying to figure out what the effects of the other ruling will be.  It's being touted as a huge defeat for unions, but everything I'm reading seems to indicate that the scope of the ruling was just for home caregivers. 

[Admiral Yi]

Alito (and the rest of majority) also were on the majority on Citizens United, which held that corporations should be treated as separate persons from the individual humans that run and direct them for the purpose of constitutional analysis.  But here Alito contends that corporations are mere instrumentalities of the persons that run and control them.

I thought the point of Citizens was exactly the opposite: that individual rights to self expression are not limited when they act collectively through a corporation.

[Valmy]

By the way: I think it is a great business move for the crafts industry to get women mad at them.  Crafty men will soon be buying their doilies and shit in no time.

But that's not really how it works.  The number of people who allow their politics to affect their consumption isn't really that large.  And even then, it's not like women stand like a monolith behind women's groups anyways.

Yep.

If women were unanimous on these things, Hobby Lobby would have closed two years ago when this all first came up.

Sorry I thought there was a joke to be made there but it didn't work quite right.

[merithyn]

Does this decision really say what the religious liberty crowd is saying it says?  That is really broad.  I mean you could just invent a religion to do whatever you wanted Scientology like right?

But I suspect it is much narrower than they are saying.

Ruth Ginsburg's dissent seems to think it will have very wide-ranging affects:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

• "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"
• "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
• "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
• "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
• "Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
• "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
• "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."