Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Legal experts: Hobby Lobby ruling may have broad implications

Legal experts: Hobby Lobby ruling may have broad implications

Last updated on: July 1, 2014 at 11:06 pm by CNA Daily News

Legal experts: Hobby Lobby ruling may have broad implications 2014-07-01T23:06:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., Jul 1, 2014 / 05:06 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- While the full impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Hobby Lobby may not yet be clear, legal scholars said that it has the potential to be used in future religious freedom cases.

“This opinion makes clear that for-profit businesses are entitled to the protections of RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” said law professor Carter Snead, who serves as director of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture.

A publicly-traded corporation could potentially be protected, but it would have to establish that it had “a sincerely held religious belief that was threatened by a particular law,” he told CNA.

Snead’s comments came in response to the Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling that Hobby Lobby and similar companies do not have to comply with the federal contraception mandate.

Issued under the Affordable Care Act, the mandate requires employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

Hobby Lobby’s owners – the Green family – are Christians who object to abortion and say that the mandate forces them to violate their faith.

The Supreme Court said that the mandate violates federal religious freedom laws that prohibit government from “substantially burdening the free exercise of religion” unless doing so is the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling government interest.” In this case, the court said, there are ways to provide free birth control to women, if the government wishes to do so, without infringing on the religious liberty of employers.

The court struck down the mandate for “closely held corporations” that have religious objections to its demands. The IRS defines “closely held corporations” as those with 50 percent or more of their stock held by five or fewer individuals.

While the decision does not concretely address larger publicly-traded companies, legal experts said the logic used in the court decision could potentially be extended to situations as well.

Larger corporations “have exactly the same right” to have their religious beliefs protected as Hobby Lobby does, suggested Robert Destro, director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law and Religion at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

“It’s not the role of the federal government to police the internal relationships among shareholders and other corporate stake-holders,” he stated. “These are questions for the boards of directors and shareholders to decide.”

Furthermore, the decision could be cited in future rulings on the scores of non-profit and religiously-affiliated organizations required to abide by a modified version of the mandate offered by the federal government as an “accommodation.”

Snead acknowledged that the Supreme Court did not explicitly rule on these groups, many of which say that the “accommodation” being offered still requires them to immorally facilitate outside insurers in providing the problematic coverage.

However, the language of the Supreme Court’s ruling “made clear” that the government couldn’t “second guess” a religious organization’s “understanding of moral complicity, cooperation, and scandal,” he said, and this could be used in future court decisions.

He pointed to the temporary injunction blocking the mandate, which was granted to the EWTN Global Catholic Network just hours after the Supreme Court ruling.

In granting the injunction, Judge William H. Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that he thinks EWTN is “substantially likely to succeed” in its argument that the mandate and “accommodation” violates its religious freedom

“The Network bases its complaint on the undisputed declarations of a Catholic theologian and the Network’s chief executive about ancient teachings of the Catholic Church. The Network complains that it would violate those teachings and commit a grave sin if it were to comply with the mandate,” Pryor wrote, before adding, “It is neither our duty nor the duty of the United States to tell the Network that its undisputed belief is flawed.”

Destro also suggested that the ruling may have an impact on businesses that have religious objections to same-sex “weddings.”

If Congress or the Obama administration tried to move forward with the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) involving sexual orientation and gender identity, it would likely spark a “huge debate over ‘religious exemptions’,” he added.

If such a case came before the Supreme Court, Destro said, it is “very clear” that the four dissenting justices in the Hobby Lobby case would also rule against the businesses, and Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the deciding vote.

One area the Supreme Court’s ruling will likely not affect is state-level contraception mandates. Some 28 states currently require insurers that cover prescription drugs to also cover all FDA-approved contraceptives.

Rather than turning to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court based its ruling on federal law, which is not applicable to the states.

Snead explained that businesses seeking to avoid these mandate would need to invoke the protection of a state religious exemption statute or the First Amendment. “The jurisprudence of the First Amendment is more complicated and difficult for such cases,” he noted.

Destro added that while the states will not be bound by the Hobby Lobby decision, it still “spells trouble” for state-level mandates in those states where religious exemption statues exist.

Previous Post

July 1, 2014

Christian doctors encouraged but cautious after Court ruling

Next Post

July 1, 2014 Minn. archbishop cooperates with investigation of 'false' claims

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Christian group traces its roots to John Calvin’s teachings?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Baptists Presbyterians Lutherans Methodists