Law Commons^™

Comment On The Definition Of "Eligible Organization" For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Robert P. Bartlett, Richard M. Buxbaum, Stavros Gadinis, Justin Mccrary, Stephen Davidoff Solomon, Eric L. Talley

Richard M. Buxbaum

This comment letter was submitted by U.C. Berkeley corporate law professors in response to a request for comment by the Health and Human Services Department on the definition of "eligible organization" under the Affordable Care Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. "Eligible organizations" will be permitted under the Hobby Lobby decision to assert the religious principles of their shareholders to exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate for employees.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that the nexus of identity between several closely-held, for-profit corporations and their shareholders holding “a …

Comment On The Definition Of "Eligible Organization" For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Robert P. Bartlett, Richard M. Buxbaum, Stavros Gadinis, Justin Mccrary, Stephen Davidoff Solomon, Eric L. Talley

Robert Bartlett

This comment letter was submitted by U.C. Berkeley corporate law professors in response to a request for comment by the Health and Human Services Department on the definition of "eligible organization" under the Affordable Care Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. "Eligible organizations" will be permitted under the Hobby Lobby decision to assert the religious principles of their shareholders to exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate for employees.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that the nexus of identity between several closely-held, for-profit corporations and their shareholders holding “a …

When Judges Are Theologians: Adjudicating Religious Questions, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

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 …

Religious Victory Over The Affordable Care Act? Possible Recourse For The Employee Of The Religious Employer, Jacqueline Prats

Jacqueline M Prats

In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Even as the Court deliberated, a number of for-profit employers prepared to challenge the law—not the Act as a whole, but a specific part: the requirement that insurance plans cover contraceptives for women, free of co-pay or other cost-sharing. Although their companies were secular, these business owners claimed that the “contraception mandate” violated not only their religious beliefs, but also those of their companies. They challenged the ACA under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and a federal statute called the Religious Freedom …

"Rfra Exemptions From The Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation Of Religion", Frederick Mark Gedicks, Rebecca G. Van Tassell

Frederick Mark Gedicks

Litigation surrounding use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to exempt employers from the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” is moving steadily towards eventual resolution in the U.S. Supreme Court. Both opponents and supporters of the mandate, however, have overlooked Establishment Clause limits on such exemptions. The fiery religious-liberty rhetoric surrounding the mandate has obscured that RFRA is a “permissive” rather than “mandatory” accommodation of religion—that is, a voluntary government concession to religious belief and practice that is not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Permissive accommodations must satisfy Establishment Clause constraints, notably the requirement that the accommodation not impose …

A Corporation Has No Soul - The Business Entity Law Response To Challenges To The Contraceptive Mandate Under The Ppaca, Thomas E. Rutledge

Thomas E. Rutledge

The most contentious matter in the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “PPACA”) is not a question of health care, but rather one of the law of business organizations. The dispute has been over the requirement that group health insurance plans provide, on a no-cost sharing basis, coverage for a variety of procedures and prescription medicines involving contraception and what are described as “abortificants.”

The class of suits subject to this discussion were filed by what are not religious organizations but rather for-profit business ventures, asserting that they should be exempt from the requirements of the …