NYT: In 2014 There Was a Leak of the Hobby Lobby Result

The New York Times today posted a lengthy investigative article revealing that the leak of the draft Dobbs opinion earlier this year was not the first time that there had been a leak of information about a decision not yet released by the Supreme Court.  The Times article is based largely on information from Rev. Rob Schenck, formerly the head of an evangelical non-profit, Faith and Action.  In a letter he sent to Chief Justice Roberts after the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, Schenck said in part:

Back in June 2014, when so many awaited the Court's opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, I was informed by a donor to the Capitol Hill-based non-profit organization I led that she and her husband would be dining at the home of Justice and Mrs. Alito. She suggested that in their table conversation, she might be able to learn the status of the case, something she knew I had an interest in knowing. I received a follow -up message from her notifying me she had indeed obtained the information during that visit. We spoke on the phone, and she detailed the revelation. As I recall, we talked about the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, and how they, too, would be interested in this information.

According to the Times:

Mr. Schenck recruited wealthy donors like Mrs. Wright and her husband, Donald, encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions. He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, records show.

All the while, he leveraged his connections to raise money for his nonprofit, Faith and Action. Mr. Schenck said he pursued the Hobby Lobby information to cultivate the business’s president, Steve Green, as a donor....

Mr. Schenck, 64, has shifted his views on abortion in recent years, alienating him from many of his former associates, and is trying to re-establish himself, now as a progressive evangelical leader. His decision to speak out now about the Hobby Lobby episode, he said, stems from his regret about the actions that he claims led to his advance knowledge about the case....

[Schenck]  had long been an ends-justify-the-means anti-abortion provocateur....

... Mr. Schenck wanted the conservatives on the court to hear from people who would hail them as heroes if they seized the opportunity to strike down Roe one day. The goal, he said in an interview, was to “embolden the justices” to lay the legal groundwork for an eventual reversal by delivering “unapologetically conservative dissents.”

UPDATE: Here is the Supreme Court Legal Counsel's response to the NYT article.

District Court Applies Hobby Lobby To Auto Dealership

In Holland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D WV, May 29, 2015), a West Virginia federal district court, applying the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, issued a permanent injunction barring federal authorities from enforcing the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage requirement, as in effect June 30, 2014, against a West Virginia auto dealership. The complaint (full text) in the case was brought by Joe Holland Chevrolet, Inc., a closely-held corporation, and its 91% owner who became a born-again Christian in 1996. Joe Holland objects to providing coverage for Plan B and ella, contraceptives that he considers abortifacients. Charleston Daily Mail reports on the decision. Liberty Institute issued a press release on the decision.

SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Decision Implemented With Narrow Injunction

Last week, an Oklahoma federal district court implemented the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, issuing a narrow injunction. In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, (WD OK, Nov. 19, 2014), the court enjoined the government from enforcing regulations under the Affordable Care Act "which require plaintiffs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. to provide their employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which plaintiffs' object on religious grounds...." The court refused to issue the broader injunction sought by plaintiff that would have enjoined enforcement of the statute, as well as the regulations, saying: "A broader order enjoining any potential application of the statute ... goes beyond what has been actually decided and litigated in this case."

8th Circuit Invokes Hobby Lobby To Reverse In For-Profit Challenge To Contraceptive Mandate

Earlier this month in a per curiam two-paragraph order, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, invoking the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, reversed a Missouri federal district court's dismissal of a RFRA claim (see prior posting) by a for-profit company that objected to the contraceptive coverage mandate. The case is O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 8th Cir., Sept. 8, 2014). The 8th circuit also vacated and remanded the district court's dismissal of other claims in the case, without expressing a view on their merits.

Citing Hobby Lobby, Court Excuses Testimony From FLDS Member Who Has Religious Belief In Secrecy

Relying extensively on both the 10th Circuit and Supreme Court opinions in Hobby Lobby, a Utah federal district court has held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows Vernon Steed, a member of the FLDS Church, to refuse to testify in a Department of Labor administrative proceeding about the internal affairs and organization of the Church.  In Perez v. Paragon Contractors, Corp., (D UT, Sept. 11, 2014), the Department of Labor sought testimony from Steed as part of its investigation of possible child labor violations involving work by FLDS children at a Utah pecan ranch harvest. Steed however claimed he believes that the identity of FLDS Church leaders, the Church's organization and its internal affairs are sacred matters, designated by God, and that he has vowed not to discuss them.  The court held:

It is not for the Court to “inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question”. Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1137. “The determination of what is a ‘religious’ belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task .... However, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981)....

Petitioner has failed to show that forcing Mr. Steed to answer the questions offensive to his sincerely held religious beliefs is the least restrictive means to advance any compelling interest it may have. For example, as a less restrictive alternative, Petitioner can continue with its efforts to obtain needed information from Paragon Contractors Corporation, Brian Jessop, Dale Barlow and others who contracted to manage the pecan ranch. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at *2780....

UPDATE: It should be noted that the body of the opinion refers to the objecting FLDS member as "Vernon Steed", while the caption labeling the motion being ruled upon refers to him as "Vergel Steed."

DC Circuit Acts On Case Remanded After Hobby Lobby

As previously reported, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Hobby Lobby case allowing for-profit-businesses to assert religious objections to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate, it remanded three other cases on its docket posing the same issue. In what appears to be the first Circuit Court to act on the remand, the D.C. Circuit last week entered an order in Gilardi v. HHS (Aug. 8, 2014) providing:

it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the case be remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction for the Freshway companies and to reconsider the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the individual owners in light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).

Yesterday's Insurance Journal reports on the order. In the case, the D.C. Circuit Court had originally rejected the claim that secular corporations have free exercise rights, but had remanded to the district court for further findings the claims of the individual owners. The ruling on corporate rights had been appealed to the Supreme Court. (See prior posting.)

Little attention has been given to the fact that plaintiffs in the case asserted, consistent with their Catholic beliefs, that they have religious objections to all atificial contraception, not just the limited number of contraceptive methods involved in Hobby Lobby. (Gilardi complaint.) Apparently last week's D.C. Circuit Court order requires the district court to issue an injunction protecting these broader objections.

Satanic Temple Says Its Followers Can Claim Exemption From Informed Consent Abortion Laws Under Hobby Lobby Principles

The Satanic Temple announced yesterday that it was launching a campaign against "informed consent" laws that require abortion providers to furnish women certain informational material when they seek an abortion.  Citing the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision, the group argues that women can claim an religiously-based exemption from the informational requirements. It makes available through its website a letter that women may download and present to their physician asking for an exemption. The Temple says that it believes the body is subject to one's will alone, and that the informational statutes require biased and false information to be presented to discourage abortions. It explains:

the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact. This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state ­mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.

Huffington Post has more details.

LA Times Profiles Becket Fund

The Los Angeles Times yesterday profiled The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, saying in part:

The Supreme Court's controversial Hobby Lobby decision has thrust a once-little-known boutique law firm into the center of a growing conservative movement to make faith-based exemptions as potent a legal tool as free speech has been for liberals....

With just a dozen full-time attorneys, the fund's string of high-court successes is earning it a reputation in legal circles as a powerhouse, though its leaders downplay talk about the firm's growing influence....

The fund insists it represents all denominations, from "A to Z, from Anglicans to Zoroastrians." It once defended a Texas Santeria priest who wanted to sacrifice goats at home. This fall the firm heads back to the Supreme Court to represent a Muslim inmate prevented by prison rules from growing a beard in keeping with his faith....

But critics say in recent years Becket has turned its focus primarily toward representing Christians and the religious right.

Federal Agencies Provide Disclosure Guidance For Companies Relying On Hobby Lobby Decision

The Department of Labor on Thursday posted an addition to Frequently Asked Questions to provide post-Hobby Lobby ERISA guidance from relevant federal agencies. For closely-held companies that terminate contraceptive coverage mid-plan year in reliance on the Hobby Lobby decision:

if an ERISA plan excludes all or a subset of contraceptive services from coverage under its group health plan, the plan's SPD [Summary Plan Description] must describe the extent of the limitation or exclusion of coverage. For plans that reduce or eliminate coverage of contraceptive services after having provided such coverage, expedited disclosure requirements for material reductions in covered services or benefits apply... which generally require disclosure not later than 60 days after the date of adoption of a modification or change.... Other disclosure requirements may apply, for example, under State insurance law applicable to health insurance issuers.

Senate Democrats Propose Bill To Overrule Hobby Lobby Decision

On Wednesday, Senators Patty Murray and Mark Udall announced that they have introduced the "Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act" (full text) (summary). The bill is designed to overrule the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision by excluding Affordable Care Act requirements from the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The bill provides in part:

(a) ... An employer that establishes or maintains a group health plan for its employees ... shall not deny coverage of a specific health care item or service with respect to such employees (or dependents) where the coverage of such item or service is required under any provision of Federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder....

... Subsection (a) shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including Public Law 103–141 [Religious Freedom Restoration Act].

According to The Hill, the Senate Bill has 35 co-sponsors.

UPDATE: In a July 16 vote, the Senate failed to invoke cloture so it could move to consideration of the bill. The vote, largely along party lines, was 56-43.  Sixty votes are required to invoke cloture.

Guantanamo Bay Detainees Argue Hobby Lobby Decision Makes RFRA Applicable To Them

AlJazeera reports on emergency motions filed last week in D.C.'s federal district court on behalf of two Guantanamo Bay detainees for temporary restraining orders to prohibit the government from denying the detainees the right to participate in communal prayer during Ramadan. The motions in Hasan v. Obama (full text) and Rabbani v. Obama (full text), both filed July 3 by the British advocacy organization Reprieve, argue that the previous D.C. Circuit decision in Rasul v. Myers holding that Guantanamo Bay detainees are not persons protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has effectively been overruled by the Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision. As the argument is framed in the Rabbani motion:

The holding and express reasoning in Hobby Lobby makes Rasul a dead letter. Rasul relied on Supreme Court case law that predated Smith and excluded nonresident aliens from the scope of constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Hobby Lobby wholly undermines Rasul by holding that the pre-Smith Supreme Court case law does not restrict the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA, which Congress intended to exceed the scope of constitutional protection as set forth in the pre-Smith case law. Hobby Lobby instructs that the scope of “person[s]” protected by the RFRA is to be determined by reference to the definition of “person” in the Dictionary Act, not by reference to the pre-Smith case law.

... The Guantanamo Bay detainees, as flesh-and-blood human beings, are surely "individuals," and thus they are no less "person[s]" than are the for-profit corporations in Hobby Lobby or the resident noncitizens whom Hobby Lobby gives as an example of persons to whom the RFRA must apply.

A hearing on the emergency motions is scheduled for tomorrow morning.

White House Reacts To Hobby Lobby Decision

At a press briefing yesterday (transcript), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest set out president Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, saying in part:

The Supreme Court ruled today that some bosses can now withhold contraceptive care from their employees’ health coverage based on their own religious views that their employees may not even share.  President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them.

Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies.  As millions of women know firsthand, contraception is often vital to their health and well being.  That’s why the Affordable Care Act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care, along with other preventative care like vaccines and cancer screenings.

We will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else.

President Obama believes strongly in the freedom of religion.  That’s why we’ve taken steps to ensure that no religious institution will have to pay or provide for contraceptive coverage.  We’ve also made accommodations for non-profit religious organizations that object to contraception on religious grounds.  But we believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits.

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.

A Comic Strip Commentary on Hobby Lobby

The Strip in today's New York Times Sunday Review is titled Fun With Corporate Conscience Clauses.  It is a comic-strip commentary on the Hobby Lobby case, corporate free exercise rights and religious conscientious objection which readers will find either immensely humorous or immensely offensive depending on one's views on the issues involved.

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.

10th Circuit En Banc Gives Big Win To Hobby Lobby In Challenge To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Yesterday an 8-judge en banc panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals gave an important win in a high profile case to for-profit businesses challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, (10th Cir., June 27, 2013), in six separate opinions spanning 165 pages, the court held that two related family-owned corporate businesses, Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, Inc., had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that their free exercise rights were substantially burdened in violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The corporations and their owners objected to providing coverage for those contraceptives they regard as abortifacients.  Four of the 8 judges would have remanded with instructions for the district court to issue a preliminary injunction, but lacking a 5th vote for that, the court instead remanded for the district court to resolve two other issues as to whether an injunction should issue-- the balance of equities and the public interest-- before issuing the injunction.

Five of the 8 judges (those who joined Part V of Judge Tymkovich's opinion) held that corporations have free exercise rights, and that here they were substantially burdened without a compelling governmental interest.  Judge Tymkovich said in part:

... Congress did not exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protections. Such corporations can be “persons” exercising religion for purposes of the statute.  ....  It is beyond question that associations—not just individuals—have Free Exercise rights: “An individual’s freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed.” ....

[T]he protections of the Religion Clauses extend beyond the walls of a church, synagogue, or mosque to religiously motivated conduct, as well as religious belief.... The distinction gains force here because religious conduct includes religious expression, which can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike......

... [S]incerely religious persons could find a connection between the exercise of religion and the pursuit of profit. Would an incorporated kosher butcher really have no claim to challenge a regulation mandating non-kosher butchering practices? The kosher butcher, of course, might directly serve a religious community—as Mardel, a Christian bookstore, does here. But we see no reason why one must orient one’s business toward a religious community to preserve Free Exercise protections. 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.....

Judge Tymkovich went on to find that the corporation's religious beliefs were substantially burdened. Saying that "substantial burden" is a question of the intensity of coercion, not the theological merit of the belief, and explaining:

It is not the employees’ health care decisions that burden the corporations’ religious beliefs, but the government’s demand that Hobby Lobby and Mardel enable access to contraceptives that Hobby Lobby and Mardel deem morally problematic.... [W]e must accept Hobby Lobby and Mardel’s beliefs.

Judge Tymkovich then rejected the argument that the government has a compelling interest in imposing the mandate. The asserted interests in public health and gender equality are broadly formulated and do not justify refusal to grant exemptions for religious objectors. Moreover, tens of millions of people are already exempt from the mandate because they are insured under grandfathered plans or work for small employers.

Four, but only 4, of the 8 judges also concluded that the individual shareholders have standing to assert claims here as well. The other judges concluded that they need not reach that issue. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the decision.