Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Corporations, Taxes, And Religion: The Hobby Lobby And Conestoga Contraceptive Cases, Steven Willis
Corporations, Taxes, And Religion: The Hobby Lobby And Conestoga Contraceptive Cases, Steven Willis
Steven J. Willis
Beginning in 2013, the federal government mandated that general business corporations include contraceptive and early abortion coverage in large employee health plans. Internal Revenue Code Section 4980D imposes a substantial excise tax on health plans violating the mandate. Indeed, for one company – Hobby Lobby – the expected annual tax is nearly one-half billion dollars. Dozens of “for profit” businesses have challenged the mandate on free exercise grounds, asserting claims under the First Amendment as well as under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So far, courts have been reluctant to hold corporations have religious rights of their own; as a …
The Supreme Court And Religious Liberty, Joseph D. Kearney
A Statute Is Worth A Thousand Words: Same Sex Marriage And Rfra, Daniel Korda
A Statute Is Worth A Thousand Words: Same Sex Marriage And Rfra, Daniel Korda
Daniel Korda
This article explores the effectiveness of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense for individuals with religious objections towards servicing same sex marriages. Specifically, this article (a) evaluates if the Federal Government has a compelling interest to promote equal accommodations for same sex marriages and (b) considers if "private" individuals suing private parties for refusing to service their marriage are in fact "public" plaintiffs, as the enforcement of laws banning marital discrimination have traditionally been enforced by the State.
Stemming The Hobby Lobby Tidal Wave: Why Rfra Challenges To Obama's Executive Order Prohibiting Federal Contractors From Discriminating Against Lgbt Employees Will Not Succeed, Kayla Higgins
Kayla Higgins
On July 21, 2014 President Obama released Executive Order 13672, which expressly aimed to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination and take further steps to promote economy and efficiency in Federal Government procurement by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Some commentators believe that the order “could be the next battleground” for the competing views of religious leaders and liberals when it comes to how to weigh religious liberty against other priorities. However, there are two main reasons why the most recent executive order should not crumble under the Hobby Lobby …
Third-Party Harms, Congressional Statutes Accommodating Religion, And The Establishment Clause, Carl H. Esbeck
Third-Party Harms, Congressional Statutes Accommodating Religion, And The Establishment Clause, Carl H. Esbeck
Faculty Publications
Those disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), are actively seeking ways to otherwise limit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissenting in Hobby Lobby, wrote that when a statute seeks to accommodate a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices there must be no detrimental effect on third parties who do not share those beliefs. Although it is unclear whether Justice Ginsburg was relying on the Establishment Clause as imposing this categorical restraint on the authority of Congress, some commentators argue that her thinking necessarily rests on that clause. …
Corporate Conscience And The Contraceptive Mandate: A Dworkinian Reading, Linda C. Mcclain
Corporate Conscience And The Contraceptive Mandate: A Dworkinian Reading, Linda C. Mcclain
Faculty Scholarship
When a closely-divided U.S. Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), upholding a challenge by three for-profit corporations to the contraceptive coverage provisions (“contraceptive mandate”) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”), sadly missing in the flurry of commentary was the late Ronald Dworkin’s assessment. This essay asks, “What would Dworkin do?,” if evaluating that case as well as Wheaton College v. Burwell, in which, over a strong dissent by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan, the Court granted Wheaton College emergency relief from complying with ACA’s accommodation procedure for religious nonprofit organizations who object to …
Time To Lift The Veil Of Inequality In Health Care Coverage: Using Corporate Law To Defend The Affordable Care Act, Seema Mohapatra
Time To Lift The Veil Of Inequality In Health Care Coverage: Using Corporate Law To Defend The Affordable Care Act, Seema Mohapatra
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby
A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby
Pepperdine Law Review
Earlier this term, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, the first of a litany of cases in which for-profit business entities are invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") in support of their claim that the Affordable Care Act’s HHS Mandate violates their freedom of religion. In particular, these plaintiffs argue that the Mandate’s requirement that employer-provided health insurance covers the costs of contraceptives, the "morning after" pill, and other fertility-related drugs conflicts with their deeply-held religious belief that life begins at conception and is, therefore, unconstitutional. …
Telescoping And Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, Henry L. Chambers Jr.
Telescoping And Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, Henry L. Chambers Jr.
Law Faculty Publications
If courts are willing to expand religious liberty so that people may be allowed to choose-on the basis of their own religious beliefs-whether certain laws will apply to non-religious entities they create, those courts should take that step very carefully. This Paper explores the issue and pro- ceeds as follows. Part I discusses three recent Supreme Court cases that il- luminate the telescoping and the collectivization of free exercise rights. Part II considers problems that accompany telescoping and collectivizing free exercise rights. Part III suggests how courts should critically evaluate the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights. This Paper …
A Word Of Warning From A Woman: Arbitrary, Categorical, And Hidden Religious Exemptions Threaten Lgbt Rights, Leslie C. Griffin
A Word Of Warning From A Woman: Arbitrary, Categorical, And Hidden Religious Exemptions Threaten Lgbt Rights, Leslie C. Griffin
Scholarly Works
Religious exemptions have already undermined women’s rights. Now exemptions threaten gays and lesbians. The Constitution protected women’s equality and liberty until religious exemptions eroded them. Today, as gays and lesbians stand on the threshold of marriage equality, religious exemptions threaten to diminish their hard-earned constitutional right. For this reason, I argue it is past time to reject the religious exemption theory of religious liberty, which privileges religion over civil and constitutional rights, in favor of neutral laws that govern all. Religious exemptions pervade American law in numerous ways that are harmful to civil rights.
In this essay, I identify three …
Corporate Piety And Impropriety: Hobby Lobby's Extension Of Rfra Rights To For-Profit Corporations, Amy Sepinwall
Corporate Piety And Impropriety: Hobby Lobby's Extension Of Rfra Rights To For-Profit Corporations, Amy Sepinwall
Amy J. Sepinwall
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held, for the first time, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to for-profit corporations and, on that basis, it allowed Hobby Lobby to omit otherwise mandated contraceptive coverage from its employee healthcare package. Critics argue that the Court’s novel expansion of corporate rights is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic principles of corporate law. In particular, they contend that the decision ignores the fact that the corporation, as an artificial entity, cannot exercise religion in its own right, and they decry the notion that the law might look through the corporate …