Law Commons^™

Religious Freedom & Closely Held Corporations: The Hobby Lobby Case & Its Ethical Implications, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

Hobby Lobby and its quest for religious freedom captured the attention of a nation for a few moments in late June 2014. The country homed in on the Supreme Court as the justices weighed the rights of an incorporated, profit-making entity run by devout individuals that objected to particular entitlements granted to women under the Affordable Care Act. The case raised important legal issues such as whether the law allows for-profit corporations to exercise religion (yes!) and whether protection for religious freedom trumps the rights of third parties to cost free preventive care (sort of!). The Supreme Court’s decision also …

Narrow Tailoring, Compelling Interests, And Free Exercise: On Aca, Rfra And Predictability, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The holding in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Incorporated was narrow in scope—closely held, for-profit corporations must be afforded an exemption from providing insurance coverage for a few types of contraception if the corporation has religious objections to providing that coverage. In addition, the exemption requirement was based on a construction of federal statute rather than on the Constitution’s free exercise guarantees. Both the narrowness of the holding and the Court’s express disavowal that it was offering a constitutional analysis might make the opinion appear relatively inconsequential. However, because the opinion changes the focus and standards of federal law and …

The Uneasy Relationship Of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, The Affordable Care Act, And The Corporate Person: How A Historical Myth Continues To Bedevil The Legal System, Malcolm J. Harkins Iii

Malcolm J Harkins III

On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear two cases — Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius — challenging the validity of the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) mandate that employer-sponsored health plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptives (the “Contraceptive Mandate”). In each case, closely held plaintiff corporations contend that the Contraceptive Mandate illegally infringed upon the corporations’ freedom to exercise religion.

The problem confronting the Supreme Court as it takes up the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases is that the concept of corporate personhood did not develop gradually …