Nov. 26, 2013 11:57 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said it would decide whether businesses, like people, have a right to religious expression, in cases challenging the federal health law's mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage to female employees.
The Supreme Court will decide whether for-profit employers can invoke their religious beliefs to deny contraceptive coverage to female employees. Jess Bravin reports on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.
The high court upheld most of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act in a June 2012 decision. But lower courts have split since then on whether contraceptive coverage must be included in minimum benefits packages.
The Obama administration has exempted religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, such as Catholic hospitals, from financing such coverage. At the same time, it held that for-profit companies remain bound by the requirement, regardless of the beliefs espoused by their owners.
The justices consolidated on Tuesday two appellate rulings that reached opposite conclusions into a single argument. The cases are expected to be heard in the spring of 2014, with a decision announced by June.
The companies challenging the rule are Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., an East Earl, Pa., manufacturer of kitchen cabinet doors.
The cases hold implications beyond even the politically charged health law. They carry the potential of expanding First Amendment rights for corporations, a concept the Supreme Court embraced in the 2010 opinion known as Citizens United, which found that corporations held political speech rights akin to those of individuals.
This time, the question involves whether corporations have similar rights to religious expression.
In July, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, found that "secular, for-profit corporations cannot engage in religious exercise." While Conestoga's Mennonite owners, the Hahn family, may have a sincere religious objection to contraceptives that may act upon the fertilized egg, such as the so-called morning after pill, the corporation they operated had no beliefs of its own, the court found.
"As the Hahns have decided to utilize the corporate form, they cannot 'move freely between corporate and individual status to gain the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the respective forms,' " the Third Circuit ruled, citing an earlier case. It specifically rejected the argument that the Citizens United ruling extended religious, as well as political, rights to corporations.
A month earlier, however, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Denver, reached the opposite conclusion, viewing a corporation as a form of association that, regardless of its profit-seeking status, can espouse religious beliefs.
"A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values. As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other," the 10th Circuit found in the Hobby Lobby case.
The Green family, which owns the chain, says its Christian beliefs reject the morning-after pill as well as intrauterine devices that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
Mr. Obama, whose 2012 re-election was fueled by women's votes, has depicted the law's provisions as a women's-health measure. On Tuesday, the White House said the law "puts women and families in control of their health care" by covering free birth control. It said for-profit corporations shouldn't be able to "dictate" women's decisions.
Opponents said the law compelled some Americans to violate their religious beliefs. "The administration's mandate is an attack on religious freedom, and I'm hopeful it will be reversed by the court," said House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).
The lower court rulings discussed the First Amendment, which guarantees free exercise of religion, but they principally turned on a 1993 federal measure called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law sought to nullify a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices found that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to people using an illegal drug—the hallucinogen peyote—even though they took it as part of a Native American religious ceremony.
Congress said in the 1993 law that government can put burdens on a person's exercise of religion only when that advances a "compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering" it.
A threshold question now is whether the 1993 law's reference to "persons" also applies to for-profit companies. While the Third Circuit said no, the 10th Circuit found that forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to provide contraceptive coverage was akin to denying a Muslim prisoner a halal diet, which in 2010 the Denver court found substantially burdened the inmate's religious exercise.
The Obama administration argued that the coverage mandate reflected compelling interests, namely "public health" and "gender equality." The 10th Circuit dismissed that argument because the Affordable Care Act exempts so many other employers—those with fewer than 50 employees, for instance—from the requirement.
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected]
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court said it would decide whether businesses, like people, have a right to religious expression, in cases challenging the federal health law's mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage to female employees.
The Supreme Court will decide whether for-profit employers can invoke their religious beliefs to deny contraceptive coverage to female employees. Jess Bravin reports on the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.
The high court upheld most of President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act in a June 2012 decision. But lower courts have split since then on whether contraceptive coverage must be included in minimum benefits packages.
The Obama administration has exempted religiously affiliated nonprofit employers, such as Catholic hospitals, from financing such coverage. At the same time, it held that for-profit companies remain bound by the requirement, regardless of the beliefs espoused by their owners.
The justices consolidated on Tuesday two appellate rulings that reached opposite conclusions into a single argument. The cases are expected to be heard in the spring of 2014, with a decision announced by June.
The companies challenging the rule are Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., an East Earl, Pa., manufacturer of kitchen cabinet doors.
The cases hold implications beyond even the politically charged health law. They carry the potential of expanding First Amendment rights for corporations, a concept the Supreme Court embraced in the 2010 opinion known as Citizens United, which found that corporations held political speech rights akin to those of individuals.
This time, the question involves whether corporations have similar rights to religious expression.
In July, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Philadelphia, found that "secular, for-profit corporations cannot engage in religious exercise." While Conestoga's Mennonite owners, the Hahn family, may have a sincere religious objection to contraceptives that may act upon the fertilized egg, such as the so-called morning after pill, the corporation they operated had no beliefs of its own, the court found.
"As the Hahns have decided to utilize the corporate form, they cannot 'move freely between corporate and individual status to gain the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of the respective forms,' " the Third Circuit ruled, citing an earlier case. It specifically rejected the argument that the Citizens United ruling extended religious, as well as political, rights to corporations.
A month earlier, however, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Denver, reached the opposite conclusion, viewing a corporation as a form of association that, regardless of its profit-seeking status, can espouse religious beliefs.
"A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values. As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other," the 10th Circuit found in the Hobby Lobby case.
The Green family, which owns the chain, says its Christian beliefs reject the morning-after pill as well as intrauterine devices that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
Mr. Obama, whose 2012 re-election was fueled by women's votes, has depicted the law's provisions as a women's-health measure. On Tuesday, the White House said the law "puts women and families in control of their health care" by covering free birth control. It said for-profit corporations shouldn't be able to "dictate" women's decisions.
Opponents said the law compelled some Americans to violate their religious beliefs. "The administration's mandate is an attack on religious freedom, and I'm hopeful it will be reversed by the court," said House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).
The lower court rulings discussed the First Amendment, which guarantees free exercise of religion, but they principally turned on a 1993 federal measure called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That law sought to nullify a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices found that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to people using an illegal drug—the hallucinogen peyote—even though they took it as part of a Native American religious ceremony.
Congress said in the 1993 law that government can put burdens on a person's exercise of religion only when that advances a "compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering" it.
A threshold question now is whether the 1993 law's reference to "persons" also applies to for-profit companies. While the Third Circuit said no, the 10th Circuit found that forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to provide contraceptive coverage was akin to denying a Muslim prisoner a halal diet, which in 2010 the Denver court found substantially burdened the inmate's religious exercise.
The Obama administration argued that the coverage mandate reflected compelling interests, namely "public health" and "gender equality." The 10th Circuit dismissed that argument because the Affordable Care Act exempts so many other employers—those with fewer than 50 employees, for instance—from the requirement.
Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected]