Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two cases that involve the Affordable Care Act, contraceptives, and religious freedom. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, combined by the Court, examine the extent to which the federal government’s mandates can infringe on the free exercise rights of religious business owners.
According to early reports, the Court is, shockingly (!), divided, at least based on questioning. Reading much into questioning, however, is a quick trip toward predictive ruin.
The mandates require businesses furnishing health care plans to abide by regulations laid down by the Dept. of Health and Human Services. These guidelines, upon recommendation of the F.D.A., included contraceptives, four of which might* be abortifacients, or drugs that terminate a pregnancy.
*I say “might” because there is serious disagreement within the medical community over the nature of those drugs and over how to define “pregnancy” and “conception.”
The businesses are suing based on the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law that Congress passed to supplant the Supreme Court’s holding in Smith, where the Court held that free exercise could be burdened by religiously neutral and generally applicable laws. Smith involved peyote, an illegal drug according to Oregon’s laws, use within religious ceremonies. The case proved so controversial that Congress acted to undermine it and return the judicial branch toward pre-Smith standards that required the government to show a compelling interest before it could burden religious exercise AND to further the interest with the least restrictive means available. The Supreme Court struck down RFRA’s application to states in City of Boerne v Flores, but it is still applicable to the Federal Government.
The relevant legal questions seem to be as follows:
- Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods are privately owned, for-profit businesses. Can such businesses engage in religious exercise and thereby claim First Amendment protection?
- Does the provision of contraceptives constitute a substantial enough burden to trigger a free exercise claim?
- Does RFRA allow for-profit businesses to bring such suits?
- Can the government demonstrate a compelling interest in requiring private businesses to furnish contraceptives as part of legally mandated health policies?
- If the interest is compelling, do the HHS mandates do so with the least restrictive means available?
How the Court might answer these questions remains to be seen. If forced to guess, I think the Court says “yes” to 1, 2, 3, but 4 and 5 will likely be quite fractured. Ed Whelan, who sneezes enough constitutional knowledge into his handkerchief to settle most disputes, seems to think 5 might be the clincher, with the Court ruling that the HHS could accommodate objections for private, for-profit businesses in the same way it has for religious non-profits. If that happens, Hobby Lobby wins.
I am not quite that confident. My gut tells me the Court could rule that providing the contraceptives is not a substantial burden and that free exercise might only be triggered if the corporation were forced to actively engage in behavior that violates free exercise. While providing the benefit might seem to fit that definition, I could see the Court, and Justice Kennedy in particular, arguing that the benefit does not necessitate the objectionable behavior, but merely provides employees the freedom to devise their own reproductive health care strategies. With the tension between the two sets of rights, religious freedom and sexual autonomy, I suspect Kennedy sides with autonomy. Though, I could, as many continually remind me, be wrong.
Travis St. Ores
March 25, 2014
This case is a very crucial one that will represent the American business owners who are Christians. The outcome for his case will impact business owners because even though owners may not believe in abortion, they will still have to provide contraceptives for their employees. This could discourage a lot of business growth in America because people do not want to be told more what they are and are not allowed to do in their company. On the other hand, people do not like paying taxes but they do it anyways because the government makes them. I am not for this point, but we must be able to defend against it and more points as Christians.
Ron Stokes
March 25, 2014
The injustice of the Justices will strike a blow against religious principals of owners of business that employes many people. Christian values once again are thrown under the bus.
Peter Martin
March 25, 2014
This case is very important because it will likely set the precedent for any trials involving the, First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is vitally important that the courts get this right. That being said, I cannot even begin understand how the courts could not deem an issue like abortion substantial enough burden to trigger a free exercise claim? This issue of abortion involves the life and death of a human life and is vitally important. If Hobby Lobby loses this fight it will be interesting to see how companies, religiously and morally opposed to this aspect of the Affordable Healthcare Bill, respond to the court decision.
David Miller
March 26, 2014
I see this not going well for Hobby Lobby just because kind of like Ron says “Christian values these days have been thrown under the bus.” In a Christian nation, I feel this case would be a no brainer, however I see our nation as no longer a Christian nation. So I see this case going either way. Even if Hobby Lobby wins they will still be under a lot of scrutiny from the public because of their pro life stands, and so many Americans these days are pro choice.
Andrew B Robertson
March 26, 2014
I agree with you. I am not very optimistic about Hobby Lobby’s success. I do not see five justices claiming that Hobby Lobby’s complaint is valid and worthy of striking down that section of the Affordable Care Act.
I just hope that I am very wrong.
Jesse Froese
March 29, 2014
I agree with the fact that these “for-profit” companies are technically not classified as “Christian organizations”. However, I do not see how this refutes them from being able to use the Religious Freedom clause in their argument seeing as the individuals who own this company hold the religious beliefs that abortion is a sin and is murder. This is also not only an issue concerning religion, but an issue concerning morality and the interpretation of the law that commands humans not to murder. This case has far reaching consequences, and the results will be a huge win or loss for Christianity and decisions like this in the future.
Brianne O'Dell
April 1, 2014
The results of this case will definitely set a precedent for the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. And either way that it is decided, there will be a response in the nationwide community. If Hobby Lobby wins, all private companies with Christian backgrounds will be scrutinized for the beliefs that they hold in the workplace. However if Hobby Lobby loses, I would sure hope that there will be backlash from all the other pro-life Christian companies.
Jameson Hale
April 1, 2014
This case will be very interesting to see which side the Justices take. Obviously, it would be great for them to side with Hobby Lobby, but I don’t know if that will happen. It would be awful to see a company like that have to abide by the health care rules. This just shows the many flaws that are in the health care bill though.
Mark Wynalda
April 2, 2014
Sadly I would have to agree that it is unlikely that Hobby Lobby will win this battle. I think the justices will vote against them thinking that their complaint is not all that serious.
Justin Denney
April 25, 2014
As Dr. Smith pointed out, the oral arguments can often be misleading. However, it would seem as though Justice Kennedy and even Justice Breyer were at least considering voting for Hobby Lobby. One interesting thing to point out is how misguided the government’s view of rights is. Almost every time, rights entail obligations. In this case, the government grants a “right” (contraception) without realizing the implication it has the the person it obliges to give the contraception. This is one thing proponents of a more intrusive government must always keep in mind, especially for religious liberty.
Brad
April 28, 2014
This particular case involving Hobby Lobby and the ACA sets a precedent for the future. Depending on who the Supreme Court sides with on all or some of these issues can change the balance of religious freedom in the country. The whole country will be watching to see if the court will have religious freedom apply to for profit corporations or if the government has the ability to mandate force these companies to supply questionable birth control methods for their employees. Let’s hope it the first option.
bethanygustin
April 29, 2014
I think this case is very important because it can be used as an example to all of the successful Christians involved in businesses. How this situation is handled is going to be extremely important because of the potential religious freedoms involved.