SCOTUS Watch

[RunningMn9]

I can't even think straight. They're allowed to create corporate policy based on religious beliefs that impact workers. A corporation...is allowed to create policy based on religious beliefs.

Apparently so.

[stessier]

I can't even think straight. They're allowed to create corporate policy based on religious beliefs that impact workers. A corporation...is allowed to create policy based on religious beliefs.

Apparently so.

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

[Smoove_B]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

[RunningMn9]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

No, it's not.

Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.

Until today anyway.

[Isgrimnur]

Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of “person,” which “include corporations, . . . as well as individuals.”
...
HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel because they cannot “exercise . . . religion.” They offer no persuasive explanation for this
conclusion. The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputably protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599. Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law. States, including those in which the plaintiff corporations were incorporated, authorize corporations to pursue any lawful purpose or business, including the pursuit of profit in conformity with the owners’ religious principles.

[Zarathud]

I mean...the idea that corporations are people and that some corporations now have the ability to impose religious beliefs on workers. It's like something out of a Douglas Adams novel.

How about the Incorporated Man? The first two books were pretty good, and I should get around to reading the third.

I have already been asked about how closely held corporations can be used to make additional political contributions, now I'm going to have to answer questions one day about how they can request the right to vote.

[stessier]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

No, it's not.

Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.

Until today anyway.

[stessier]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).

[Kurth]

According to the majority, because Hobby Lobby and Conestoga object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for 4 contraceptive measures it considers "abortifacients," the relevant portions of the Affordable Care Act violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

To reach that conclusion the majority holds that:

1. (A) A closely held corporation is a "person" because the Dictionary Act's definition of "person" includes "corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

• (B) Taking as an assumption, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring coverage for the contraceptive measures at issue.

• (C) But the measures taken in the AFA to meet that compelling interest are not the least restrictive means becasue the government could just offer the same terms it affords religious non-profits, under which a certifying religious non-profit is exempted from offering coverage contrary to its beliefs and the insurance carrier must pick up the slack at no additional cost to the insured employee.

First off, I think it's wrong to read this opinion as being limited to closely-held corporations. Although the majority does not address whether its interpretation of the RFRA also applies to publicly traded companies, the way the opinion backhands that concern speaks volumes: "it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims. HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. For example, the idea that unrelated shareholders— including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable." I find that really troubling.

Second, the majority's "least restrictive means" analysis is problematic on a number of fronts. I can't understand the distinction made between these cases and the tax case (Lee). The majority seems to say that allowing exemptions from taxation based on religious belief would ruin the tax system, but why wouldn't the same be true of the health insurance system? Also, I don't understand the suggestion that the AFA is not employing the least restrictive means to ensure that women are provided with contraception because of the exemptions permitted religious non-profits. As pointed out by the dissent, the two are not similarly situated. Religious non-profits are organized by members of a similar belief to further that belief. For-profit corporations are not. (See Lee) (“[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”).

Also, if the RFRA allows corporations to exempt themselves from coverage based on the corporation's religious beliefs and that additional coverage expense then has to be carried by the insurance company, are we going to see companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga then facing increased premiums from those companies due to the increased cost of coverage? If so, won't they end up paying for the coverage anyway, or am I misunderstanding something about the exemption?

At the end of the day, aren't benefits like health coverage just another form of compensation? What if Hobby Lobby or Conestoga or another corporation objecting to providing certain health coverage (contraception, blood transfusions, medicine generally) on religious grounds were faced with difficulty hiring qualified employees? What if the only way they could secure qualified employees was by increasing salaries? What if the differential in salary was equal to what it would cost a potential employee to individually secure independent health care coverage without the employer-imposed limits? Wouldn't the company be funding the behavior it finds objectionable albeit with a little accounting cover? Not saying any of that would actually happen, but, to me, it highlights the absurdity of the majority's "least restrictive means" analysis.

[Pyperkub]

I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing closely held corporations to impose Sharia law on their (female) employees.

[Rip]

I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing closely held corporations to impose Sharia law on their (female) employees.

I was just pondering converting to Islam.

Virginity tests for all unmarried female applicants.
Any accusation of sexual harassment must be witnessed by three male employees.
No females allowed to drive company vehicles.
Any theft or misappropriation of company property will result in the offenders hands being cut off.

I will have to work on the rest of my list.



I would like to thank SCOTUS for the refill, my emergency vial of liberal tears was woefully low.

[Pyperkub]

I'd like to thank the Supreme Court for allowing closely held corporations to impose Sharia law on their (female) employees.

I was just pondering converting to Islam.

Virginity tests for all unmarried female applicants.
Any accusation of sexual harassment must be witnessed by three male employees.
No females allowed to drive company vehicles.
Any theft or misappropriation of company property will result in the offenders hands being cut off.

I will have to work on the rest of my list.



I would like to thank SCOTUS for the refill, my emergency vial of liberal tears was woefully low.

Masks - we need masks! Bring on the dance of the seven veils!

[Pyperkub]

PS - it was your own state which inspired that bit of snark.

[Kraken]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).

Actually, it's likely to increase the number of abortions.

"We have really good evidence for that. If you use science here, you're talking about this decision increasing the number of women having abortion if they do not cover emergency contraception and IUDs."

The evidence comes from studies that examined whether rates of abortions fell if women received the most effective methods of contraception, free of charge. In one research project, conducted in the St. Louis area in Missouri, of the 10,000 participating women, 75 percent opted for long-acting methods of contraception such as IUDs or implants, and the rest chose short-acting methods such as pills, hormonal patches or cervical rings.

The results showed that increasing the availability and use of the most effective contraception methods, such as IUDs, reduced abortion rates by 20 percent, Wiebe said.

[Isgrimnur]

For GODCORP so loved the shareholders that he gave his one and only subsidiary, Jesus Christ (a Limited Liability Company) that whoever invests in him shall not perish but have profitable quarterly earnings. Now turn in your hymnals to page twenty six, "A mighty fortress is our Walmart".

[Zarathud]

Bravo, Izzy.

[Isgrimnur]

Came from a friend of mine, thought it was good enough to share.

[gameoverman]

I think a corporation shouldn't have anything to complain about in providing coverage because they shouldn't know what elements of that coverage will be used, if it ever is used.

For instance, they'd have no right to know if a worker was using contraception, provided by their health coverage, since that's between the worker and the doctor.

I could personally hand you contraception and still have no way of knowing if you, or anyone else, ever uses it and for what purpose it might be used. So what grounds to I have to complain that it violates my beliefs assuming I was religiously opposed to contraception use?

[Holman]

I think half the country is about to decide that employers should just have nothing to do with your health care.

[Isgrimnur]

I hope that Michael's has some good marketing people.

[raydude]

"We have really good evidence for that. If you use science here, you're talking about this decision increasing the number of women having abortion if they do not cover emergency contraception and IUDs."

The evidence comes from studies that examined whether rates of abortions fell if women received the most effective methods of contraception, free of charge. In one research project, conducted in the St. Louis area in Missouri, of the 10,000 participating women, 75 percent opted for long-acting methods of contraception such as IUDs or implants, and the rest chose short-acting methods such as pills, hormonal patches or cervical rings.

The results showed that increasing the availability and use of the most effective contraception methods, such as IUDs, reduced abortion rates by 20 percent, Wiebe said.

On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.

[raydude]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

No, it's not.

Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING.

Until today anyway.

Question for you guys: Let's rewind to the day before the SCOTUS decision. Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs. Why can't the owner also say that he doesn't believe in these contraceptives and therefore opt out of providing for them? In other words, what is the dividing line between the owner being able to close on Sunday because of his beliefs and not being able to opt out of contraceptives because of his beliefs?

[RunningMn9]

It's perfectly reasonable for the owner of a company to choose the hours of operation for the company, based on whatever criteria he chooses. It's less reasonable for the owner of a company to impact specific medical choices of his or her employees, for any reason. The owner can make a business decision to not provide insurance to anyone. But to specifically target female employees and to not cover specific medical procedures or medications because you don't believe in them?

[malchior]

That is Apples and Oranges. There is no law specifying the store must be open on Sunday.

[raydude]

It's perfectly reasonable for the owner of a company to choose the hours of operation for the company, based on whatever criteria he chooses. It's less reasonable for the owner of a company to impact specific medical choices of his or her employees, for any reason. The owner can make a business decision to not provide insurance to anyone. But to specifically target female employees and to not cover specific medical procedures or medications because you don't believe in them?

Okay, but fast forward to today. Why is Hobby Lobby the person able to do what you said but the owner was previously not able to do so? I'm asking because I genuinely want to know and I'm curious to see if there was another way Hobby Lobby could have chosen to resolve this.

[Smoove_B]

On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.

That's what's even more confusing about this. If I am interpreting this correctly, the Court essentially said that even if the methods Hobby Lobby disapprove of don't actually function that way, it's enough that Hobby Lobby believes that they do for them to have an objection. Belief in something that isn't true is enough for legal support. I...what in the hell?

[Defiant]

That is Apples and Oranges. There is no law specifying the store must be open on Sunday.

IF anything, there are laws specifying the opposite ("Blue" laws)

[raydude]

On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.

That's what's even more confusing about this. If I am interpreting this correctly, the Court essentially said that even if the methods Hobby Lobby disapprove of don't actually function that way, it's enough that Hobby Lobby believes that they do for them to have an objection. Belief in something that isn't true is enough for legal support. I...what in the hell?

Wait, I'm not a medical person, I just read what's on wikipedia . Are you saying that it isn't legally true that these contraceptives are, or can be used, post conception? Or are you saying that it isn't legally true that life starts at conception? I use the term "legally" because I'm assuming the Supreme Court is only using legal precedent and stuff.

[Smoove_B]

I'm saying that 4 medical options being objected to by Hobby Lobby are being objected to based on their belief that they are abortifacients, i.e. something that causes an abortion. Medically speaking, they do not:

For the two pills they're objecting to:

"Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking their pills."

For the two IUDs they're objecting to:

“Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them.”

All from here.

The crux:

So why would the Supreme Court blindly accept the assertion by the Greens and their fellow plaintiffs that these contraceptive methods cause abortion?

Because all that matters, in this religious freedom case, is that the Greens believe it.

“When the court looks at religion claims,” said Melling, “one of the elements raised is the sincerity of the religious belief. And the court is usually quite deferential to what somebody says is their belief. In that respect, it’s less unusual than people might think that the court didn’t look behind that assertion.”

[raydude]

Whoa. So technically the corporate me could say "I really really believe that blood transfusions cause abortions" and I may have a case?

[Smoove_B]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

[raydude]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.

[stessier]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.

Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.

[Unagi]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).

That's a little over generous of you. While clearly a man is involved - he isn't the one that is pregnant, may not even know that she is, and may never know, not to mention care or deal with it at all.

Maybe they aren't trying to prevent 'virgin births', just pregnancies they are not about to go through with or make public.

[raydude]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).

That's a little over generous of you. While clearly a man is involved - he isn't the one that is pregnant, may not even know that she is, and may never know, not to mention care or deal with it at all.

Maybe they aren't trying to prevent 'virgin births', just pregnancies they are not about to go through with or make public.

Affects or impacts might not be the best words to use. How about "targets"?

[Kurth]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

I don't read the opinion that way, Smoove.

While this ruling is limited in scope, there's nothing in the opinion that precludes the majority's holding that precludes its application to different factual scenarios (lke vaccination or blood transfusions). In fact, the majority plainly leaves the door open to that, merely indicating that those specific scenarios will be decided on their facts, within the Court's framework:

(1) Are there sincerely held religious beliefs in play?
(2) Is the exercise of those beliefs being substantially burdened by government action?
(3) Is that government action in furtherance of a compelling government interest?
(4) Is that government action the least restrictive means for achieving that compelling government interest?

If the answers to (1) and (2) are YES, and the answer to either (3) or (4) is NO, then the law at issue will fail.

Given that the majority was clear that the courts shouldn't be in the business of weighing different beliefs (so long as they are sincerely held), I don't see how any belief-based challenge to providing health coverage will ever fail. That includes vaccinations, blood transfusions . . . anything, really. The answer to question (4) above will always be NO, because there is always the less restrictive option, in the majority's view, that the costs for the objected-to treatment be shifted to the insurance companies (or the public).

[Kurth]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.

Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.

I'm not sure where this comes from. As I read it, they were explicitly warning that courts can't be in the business of weighing the value of different beliefs. My take was that it's not about the importance saving or not saving human life. It's about a religious belief that you're not supposed to do something, regardless of what that is.

[El Guapo]

Also about half of states apparently have their own contraceptive mandates. Since the RFRA has been held to not apply to the states, those state-level mandates appear to stand.

[Smoove_B]

I don't read the opinion that way, Smoove.

And I appreciate your feedback. IANAL -- I'm only reporting what has been repeated by various media outlets - that this ruling is limited in scope and shouldn't have any impact outside of this case <nudge nudge>. I have no way to academically argue as to why this was a bad case other than to me (an regular dude) it seems wonky. Regarding the vaccination issue - one that I do have academic knowledge about - our existing legal authority comes from a 1905 Supreme Court case. Since this 2014 case involves "whoring it up" and not "the protection of the community against infectious disease", they're clearly different however I don't know legal Kung-Fu and wouldn't make the assumption there isn't a team of lawyers somewhere drooling over the idea of tackling a case from over a hundred years ago that was just used in NYC to craft a ruling.

Kuntz’s ruling drew from a 1905 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state of Massachusetts’ right to fine a citizen $5 for refusing to be vaccinated against smallpox. The man claimed that his religion forbade it, but the Supreme Court ruled that public health concerns take precedence over religious objections.

[Pyperkub]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

Which is exactly what the court tried to do with gay marriage and look how wrong they were.