Who would have ever imagined that a craft store chain owned by a Christian family would be at the center of a Supreme Court case about sexuality, abortifacient drugs, the role of corporations, and religious liberty? Oral arguments were heard today in the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The central point of the case is whether or not the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby and Mardel Christian bookstores, has the right to exercise their religious freedom in opting out of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employer-provided health plans to offer emergency birth control drugs at no charge to their employees. The Greens have objected on religious grounds that such emergency birth control options are tantamount to abortion and that providing abortion-inducing drugs is a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs.
Trying to predict what the Supreme Court will decide is an exercise in futility, so I will not go down that road. However, I do want to highlight a few interesting notes from today’s oral arguments.
The first is not all that surprising (and possibly not all that interesting)—the high court appears divided. From the best one can tell from the questioning, the Supreme Court is split 4-4 with Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor apparently siding with the government and Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito leaning towards Hobby Lobby. This leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote in an otherwise divided Court. This is familiar territory for the current version of the Supreme Court.
The second item of note is that the role of a corporation seems to be a big question. Some of the liberal justices seemed to imply that corporations should simply be able to pick up the tab for the healthcare expenses or fees for not providing healthcare with no impact on the business or the economy. They did not seem to take into account that these healthcare costs have to be paid by someone and that the costs would most likely be passed along to the customer. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor also pressed Paul Clement, the attorney arguing for Hobby Lobby, about whether corporations could opt out of other healthcare options for their employees. Lyle Denniston reports that they “suggested that if corporations gain an exemption from having to provide birth-control services for their female employees, then the next complaint would be about vaccinations, blood transfusions, and a whole host of other medical and non-medical services that a company or its owners might find religiously objectionable.”
On the other hand, Justice Alito pushed back against Solicitor General Donald Verrilli regarding the purpose of corporations. He asked the Solicitor General if the only purpose of corporations was to “maximize profits.” If the object is only to maximize profits, then corporations would have no other rights. However, if corporations serve other purposes, then they might have the right to protection under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.
The third item is the most interesting development in my opinion. It relates to the rights of a corporation to make a claim regarding discrimination. The government argued that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby have no standing to file a claim against the government based on religious discrimination. On the surface this seems to make sense because corporations are not churches, nor are they individuals with religious beliefs. However, the government has already held that corporations can file claims based on racial discrimination. In the same sense, corporations are not individuals of a particular race or ethnicity. The racial discrimination claims have typically been based on the race and ethnicity of the owners.
Applying the same standard to the religious freedom aspect of the Hobby Lobby case, it would appear that the Green family’s deeply held religious beliefs (and clear articulation of those beliefs in company documents) would provide the corporation with the same protections as those guaranteed to them as individuals. This argument could prove to be central in the upcoming decision of the Court.
Once again, we will be left to wait for months until hearing the decision of the Supreme Court that will most likely come in June. Until then, it is futile to speculate what the Court will decide. However, there is one thing that we can do. We can pray for the justices of the Supreme Court that God would grant them wisdom in judging these matters. We should pray for godly wisdom that they would rule according to God’s will. We should pray that they would value life in the way that God values life—seeing those in the womb as no different than a full-grown adult (Psalm 139:13–16).
I urge you to join me in prayer for John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The future of religious liberty in the United States is in their hands.
_________________________
Lyle Denniston, “Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas,” SCOTUSblog, March 25, 2014.
Derrick Morgan, Hans von Spakovsky, and Elizabeth Slattery, “How the Supreme Court Justices Reacted to Today’s Hobby Lobby Arguments,” The Foundry, March 25, 2014.
Ilya Shapiro, “Is There No Alternative to Forcing People to Violate Their Religious Beliefs?” Cato Institute, March 25, 2014.
Ethics as Worship 
Not really sure how this particular issue is such a big deal, health insurance has covered birth control for men, in other words, vasectomies, for years, why all of a sudden is it such a controversy. Seems it’s more of a sexist issue than a religious one. Pass the law and move on, there’s a reason the constitution and bill of rights cover “separation of church and state” if you don’t agree with the coverage based on religious reasons, don’t use it, but your obligation as a company is to your employees, who might in fact prefer birth control.
Dan, thanks for stopping by. I would encourage you to read up on the details of the case at http://www.hobbylobbycase.com. Hobby Lobby has not objected to providing contraception as part of their health insurance plans. In fact they offer a wide variety of contraceptives as part of their plan. However, they have objected to emergency birth control measures that act after conception like Ella and Plan B. HHS has mandated that these particular measures be included. Based on the owners’ deeply held religious beliefs that life begins at conception, these measures violate their religious beliefs because they are equated with abortion. Therefore, it is not a sexist issue. Including such an argument is a red herring because it doesn’t actually involve the facts or merits of the case.
The other issue you mentioned is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights cover “separation of church and state.” I encourage you to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights again and look for those words. You won’t find them. The First Amendment is the only part of the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) that addresses anything close to that, and it specifically prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. This is exactly the reason why Hobby Lobby filed the case against the federal government.
Been keeping up with this ever since I first heard wind of it (I believe that was in your class). It baffles me how liberals play fast and loose with their double-standards. I’m curious as to why the government just does not offer to pay for these abortifacient if they are so adamant about people offering them for their employees.
I find the argument about corporations very interesting. Corporations do have privileges and I guess you could say rights as that is why they exist. They make good sense for a business to become a corporation. One reason is to allow the business owners and/or officers to avoid personal liability from the actions of the corporation. As an example a corporation can be convicted of a crime but you can’t send a corporation to jail.
Understandably Hobby Lobby feels a “liability” do to being forced to act beyond their religious beliefs. That would translate as a personal liability felt by individuals who are the corporate officers of the two companies involved in this case. So then is their argument to increase liability of corporate officers?
If it is then this a case for Solomon. As you state “role of a corporation seems to be a big question”. Any change to that role would have effects beyond the issues in this case.
I wonder if any of this would apply to a business that was individually owned such as sole proprietorship?
Thanks for commenting, Nate. It’s been too long since I’ve seen you.
I don’t think Hobby Lobby is necessarily looking to increase the liability of the corporate officers so much as I think it is they are trying to say the beliefs of the corporate officers (the Green family) extend to the corporation. Chief Justice Roberts actually sounded like he was looking for a narrow ruling that would apply to Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties as family owned companies but not huge conglomerates like Exxon Mobil.
I think a sole proprietorship (as I assume your business and my dad’s business are) has tighter protections already because the individual is the business. It would not be like Hobby Lobby’s 15,000 stores.
Evan, actually my business is incorporated. There are various types of corporations out there such as C corporations, Limited Liability Corporations and Professional Limited Liability Corporations plus a few others. The charter of incorporation are state issued and they can vary by state. You may have heard the term “Delaware Corporation” because that state had a high number of corporations because of it’s liberal incorporation rules.
Perhaps a remedy would be for one state to define a corporation that would allow Hobby Lobby to resolve their issue.
Again this is issue is hugely complicated, It will be an interesting decision, Enjoy your writing,
Nate