District Court Carries Out Supreme Court's Contraceptive Coverage Decision In Conestoga

The U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby opinion handed down last June also applied to the companion case of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell.  Since the 3rd Circuit in Conestoga had denied a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate (see prior posting), the Supreme Court reversed the 3rd Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. Last week in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell, (ED PA, Oct. 2, 2014), the federal district court, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, issued a permanent injunction barring the government from enforcing the contraceptive coverage mandate against Conestoga as to those contraceptive services to which the company and its owners object on religious grounds. The court noted that if the proposed rules creating an accommodation for businesses asserting a religious objection are adopted, the government reserves the right to enforce the accommodation against Conestoga. Christian News reports on the court's action.

Supreme Court Rules RFRA Allows Closely-Held Corporations To Refuse Contraceptive Coverage

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., (S.Ct., June 30, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations whose owners object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraceptive services. In a majority opinion by Justice Alito, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to closely-held corporations, and that the government has not shown that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering its presumably compelling interest in guraranteeing cost-free access to the four contraceptive methods to which the companies object. Justice Alito said in part:

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

Justice Alito argues that the majority opinion is narrow:

We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

He says that if the same accommodation given to religious non-profits were extended to closely-held corporations, the effect on women "would be precisely zero."

Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion as well as joining Justice Alito's majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented in two related dissenting opinions.

Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion calls the majority's decision one of "startling breadth." She adds in a section of her dissent joined only by Justice Sotomayor: "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."

Additional analysis of the decision will follow in separate posts.

Supreme Court Will Decide Much-Watched Hobby Lobby Case Today

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down the much-awaited decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores  and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell. These challenges to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate raise a number of difficult and interesting religious liberty questions. Here are SCOTUS Blog's resource pages on Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Also SCOTUS Blog will be live blogging from the courtroom here. The opinions in the cases will be posted here by the Supreme Court as soon as they are announced. Religion Clause will be reporting on the decisions and their implications, probably with a rolling post or with several posts during the day and beyond.

Transcript and Summaries of Hobby Lobby Arguments In Supreme Court Today

The full transcript of the oral arguments earlier today in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius is now available from the Supreme Court's website.  Extensive reports on the oral arguments are available from Lyle Denniston (SCOTUS Blog) and the Washington Post,

UPDATE: Here is the audio of the oral arguments.

Background Sources For Tomorrow's Supreme Court Arguments in Hobby Lobby/ Conestoga

Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc. cases-- two high profile religious freedom challenges by for-profit businesses to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  For those who want an introduction, a refresher, or further resources on the numerous and difficult legal and political issues involved in the cases, here are some sources:

• All briefs (parties and amici) in Hobby Lobby.
• All briefs (parties and amici) in Conestoga Wood Specialties.
• Lyle Denniston, Argument preview: Religion, rights, and the workplace (Scotus blog).
• Scotus blog's Contraceptive Mandate Symposium.
• Becket Fund's Resource Page on Hobby Lobby.
• Marty Lederman's Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases from Balkinization blog.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Two Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today (11/26/2013) granted certiorari in two cases challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate, and consolidated them for appeal allotting one hour for oral argument. (Order List.) The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, (Docket No. 13-354) and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, (Docket No. 13-356).

In the Hobby Lobby case, an 8-judge en banc panel of the 10th Circuit Court (in six separate opinions spanning 165 pages) held that two related family-owned corporate businesses had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that their free exercise rights were substantially burdened in violation of RFRA.  The corporations and their Christian owners objected to providing coverage for those contraceptives they regard as abortifacients.  Five of the 8 judges held that corporations have free exercise rights. Four of the 8 judges also concluded that the individual shareholders have standing to assert claims as well. (See prior posting.) From Becket Fund, here is a link to all the pleadings and briefs in the case since its inception.

In Conestoga Wood Specialties, the 3rd Circuit in a 2-1 decision denied a preliminary injunction sought by a family-owned business which, along with its Mennonite owners, objected to providing coverage for contraceptive methods that may terminate a fertilized embryo. The majority opinion held that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise," and that the conscience rights of the owners of a corporation do not pass through to the corporation. (See prior posting.) By a 7-5 vote, the 3rd Circuit denied an en banc rehearing. (See prior posting.) From Becket Fund, here is a link to the prior opinions and Supreme Court filings in the case.

CNN has additional coverage of the Supreme Court's action.

Split 3rd Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing In Contraceptive Coverage Case

By a vote of 7-5 yesterday the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In the case, a 3-judge panel in a 2-1 decision last month denied a preliminary injunction sought by a family-owned business to stop enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. (See prior posting.) Alliance Defending Freedom announced that it would now petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

3rd Circuit Rejects ACA Challenge: For-Profit Corporations Cannot Engage In Religious Exercise

In Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (3rd Cir., July 26, 2013), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision denied a preliminary injunction sought by a family-owned business to stop enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  Rejecting free exercise and RFRA claims, Judge Cowan's majority opinion held that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise," and the conscience rights of the owners of a corporation do not pass through to the corporation.  Cowan in his majority opinion wrote, in part:

We are unable to determine that the "nature, history, and purpose" of the Free Exercise Clause supports the conclusion that for-profit, secular corporations are protected under this particular constitutional provision....

We recognize the fundamental importance of the free exercise of religion.... Thus, our decision here is in no way intended to marginalize the Hahns' commitment to the Mennonite faith. We accept that the Hahns sincerely believe that the termination of a fertilized embryo constitutes an ―intrinsic evil and a sin against God to which they are held accountable ... and that it would be a sin to pay for or contribute to the use of contraceptives which may have such a result. We simply conclude that the law has long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself. A holding to the contrary—that a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise—would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.

Judge Jordan, dissenting, wrote in part:

 My colleagues, at the government's urging, are willing to say that the Hahns' choice to operate their business as a corporation carries with it the consequence that their rights of conscience are forfeit.

That deeply disappointing ruling rests on a cramped and confused understanding of the religious rights preserved by Congressional action and the Constitution. The government takes us down a rabbit hole where religious rights are determined by the tax code, with non-profit corporations able to express religious sentiments while for-profit corporations and their owners are told that business is business and faith is irrelevant. Meanwhile, up on the surface, where people try to live lives of integrity and purpose, that kind of division sounds as hollow as it truly is.

[Thanks to Jeffrey Pasek for the lead.] 

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Business' Contraceptive Mandate Challenge

As reported by Fox 43 News, on Thursday the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. An audio recording of the full oral arguments are now available. (.wma file). In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate in a suit brought by a small wood specialties manufacturing company and its five Mennonite Christian owners. (See prior posting.) The 3rd Circuit refused to grant a stay pending appeal. (See prior posting.)