Law Commons^™

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 …

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 …

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Responding To Smith; Reconsidering Reynolds, Keith Jaasma

Keith Jaasma

This comment examines the cae of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, and Congress' response to that decision in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Comment further examines whether the Supreme Court's 1879 Decision in Reynolds v. United States, which upheld laws against polygamy in the Utah Territory, would continue to be viable in light of the RFRA and Free Excercise Clause cases that have been decided since.