The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments tomorrow in a very important case on religious freedom. The case is generally known as the Hobby Lobby case (after one of the big companies involved). The case involves the question of whether the federal government can require a private company to provide its employees with full contraception coverage under its health insurance plan, even if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of those who own or control the company.
The family that controls Hobby Lobby says that certain forms of contraception the government is requiring to be covered, in particular those which involve preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, violate their religious beliefs. The Obama administration, obviously, disagrees, saying that commercial enterprises do not have the right to be exempt from government regulation based on religious beliefs.
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about this case in the media. For example, this morning’s Chicago Tribune calls this a First Amendment case. It is not. Rather, it is case of statutory interpretation. The question is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 gives Hobby Lobby a basis for not providing insurance to cover those methods of contraception, which it says violates its religious belief.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides that the “[federal] government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” except if necessary to further a “compelling government interest". While the language of the statute mimics language in Supreme Court cases relating to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, it is the application and meaning of the language in the statute that is in question here, not the First Amendment itself. While the decision in Hobby Lobby may give some indication of what the Supreme Court might do in a constitutional case, in this case the Court is interpreting specific statutory language, not the First Amendment, and that limits what its decision might be.
Also, in the second paragraph of its article this morning, the Tribune said:
“Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties.”
No. That is not correct. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court did not say corporate entities (whether they be businesses, labor unions or public interest groups) had “full” free-speech rights. The Citizens United case held that corporate entities could make independent expenditures and “electioneering communications” in campaigns for federal office. The decision did not involve, and it did nothing to change, the prohibition under federal law against corporations or unions making direct contributions to candidates or political parties for federal elections.
Now to my thought of this morning: While, as I said above, the Hobby Lobby case is not a constitutional case, many people (such as the Tribune and others) like to talk as if it is. So let’s look at it that way. The question is: Does a corporation have a right to freedom of religion”; i.e., does the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment apply to corporations?* Some people say no. Just as they object to Citizens United, claiming that a corporation does not have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, they argue a corporation does not have rights under the free exercise of religion clause. If that is true, I wonder how they feel about other parts of the First Amendment. Do they think that corporations (and unions) have rights under the “petition … for a redress of grievances” clause?
What about other parts of the Bill of Rights? Can “cruel and unusual punishments” be imposed on corporations, regardless of the Eighth Amendment? What about “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment) or being “deprived of … property, without due process of law” (Fifth Amendment)? Do these apply to corporations and unions?
--------
* Here is the full text of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Recent Comments