Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.


"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News.

The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented.

The Obama administration, two years ago, already negotiated with religious-based schools, hospitals and other non-profits to reach an accommodation on the issue of contraception coverage. In the wake of Monday's ruling, the question now before the administration is how it might try to accommodate for-profit businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon that the decision "jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies," but said the administration would respect the ruling.

"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," he said. Earnest did not get into specifics, saying they are still assessing the decision and trying to determine which companies are affected.

Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation made available to non-profits -- by letting the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.

"If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would," Alito wrote.

The Supreme Court challenge was brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans.

It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.

Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court were those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argued that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.

The Obama administration had argued that a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it.

Democratic leaders blasted the court's decision on Monday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tweeting: "It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.

The Obama administration argued earlier this year that the case is not just about birth control, and that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.

Alito clarified that the decision Monday is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Isn't it a little unusual for a Supreme Court judge to declare openly that he is upholding religious bias?

 

It's fair the government should have ZERO say in private business in this kind of matter.

 

But the ruling doesn't give them ZERO say. It applies only in very strict circumstances.


Also, it is - as far as I can understand the US Constitution - an entirely unconstitutional act to give a company rights. Rights should only belong to the people, no?

 

Correct, however I will take this further. If the government wants to tell people how to run their privately owned business they are in turn striping the owner of his/her rights.

If I want to refuse service or employment to someone based on race, religion or any of that it's my right. Will it be bad for business, hell yes. Still my right.

 

That violates everybody else's right to be treated as equals. Which one is more important, yours or theirs?

 

As we can see, the administration does not agree with the decision of the Supreme Court: they will once again try to do via Congress that which has already been shot down by the SCOTUS. If Congress refuses to comply with Pres Obama's commands, expect the Imperial President to begin signing more executive orders.


The White House will push for congressional action to provide contraception coverage in light of the Supreme Court ruling Monday.

*not_secure_link*www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/600x399187.jpgNew White House press secretary Josh Earnest speaks to the media during his first briefing as press secretary, Monday, June 23, 2014, in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin



“We will work with Congress to make sure any women affect by this decision are not denied access to contraceptive services,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.


The high court ruled 5-4 that a company cannot be forced to provide coverage for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, maintaining the religious liberty of business owners that might have objections.


Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the four conservatives; but wrote a concurring opinion saying the government can cover the cost, but cannot compel private employers to do so.


“There is a problem being exposed that a group of women of an indeterminate size no longer have access to free contraception because of religious views, not their own religious views, but their bosses religious views,” Earnest said. “We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the oval office disagrees.”


The court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius said the government failed to show the mandate is the least restrictive way to advance the interest of low-cost birth control.


The plaintiffs argued on the grounds of both the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.


Earnest stressed that Obama supports religious liberty and provided exemptions for churches and religious nonprofits.

 

I am blown away that they sided with the people. They usually side with the government, but being the head criminal is whining they will probably change their minds on appeal

 

Maybe some months down the road, a news story will include a quote from an IRS official stating that it's purely coincidence that, shortly after the June 30th ruling, Supreme Court Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy all received notices in the mail informing them they were being audited. Then again, after last week's ruling when Obama received a 9-0 SCOTUS bitch slap, maybe nine letters will go out, because, "we target liberals, too" was one of their claims regarding the 501(c)4 flare up.

 

Nope. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for a particular case, with them giving the final opinion as to whether the law applied is constitutional or not.

*not_secure_link*www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe!openform&nav=menu1&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/287

"When the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional, however, its decision can only be overruled by a later decision of the Supreme Court or by an amendment to the Constitution. Seven of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have invalidated decisions of the Supreme Court. However, most Supreme Court cases don’t concern the constitutionality of laws, but the interpretation of laws passed by Congress."


-------------------------

 

I've always said that Hobby Lobby can go fuck themselves. Apparently the Supreme Court agrees....

 

Quite the opposite. For the second time in as many weeks, the Supreme Court told Obama to go fuck himself.

 

hobby lobby has no problem providing contraceptives what they were fighting for is not having to pay for the morning after pill or abortions the insurance they have already pays for the pill IUDs and the likes they just have a problem with paying to have babies killed

 

Correct. In fact, before Blowbamacare, Hobby Lobby's employee health plans already included coverage for a wide assortment of methods that were geared to preventing pregnancy. They've stated several time that they had no problem including that in their health plans. It was only after Blowbama and the Democraps forced mandatory coverage of "post conception" types of birth control (rather, "birth prevention") that they took issue.

 

A couple interesting points:

The SCOTUS decision is very tightly worded. It only applies to birth control for privately held companies. What's interesting is that creates a legal conundrum wherein birth control is now given a special class under federal law. It also required SCOTUS to further validate another part of ACA for providing birth control outside of employers.

Hobby Lobby actually provided for Plan B prior to filing the lawsuit. They also invested in Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company that makes Plan B. They stopped both just prior to filing the lawsuit. I'd argue that their religious convictions about Plan B aren't as strong as they're implying.

SCOTUS didn't side with "the people" on this. The vast majority of Americans supported having employers provide birth control. Only 35% of the public polled said that they supported Hobby Lobby and 40% strongly disagreed with Hobby Lobby. In an unusual turn, this is SCOTUS giving more rights to corporations, an entity that does not exist under the Constitution.

As for Congressional or Executive action to deal with this, one is impossible and the other is unlikely. The president cannot pass an executive order that contravenes this. Yes, he could pull and Andrew Jackson but that's not gonna happen in modern America. Congress could, in theory, work together to write a law that would allow a loophole. But Congress doing anything bipartisan is one of the most unlikely things I could think of.

There was an interesting remark about Obama using executive orders. Fun fact:Obama has passed fewer executive orders at this point in his presidency than any other president in the last 100 years. He's passed an average of 33.58 per year for 182 as of 6/20/14. That puts him at the lowest since Grover Cleveland's first term with 28.25 per year for 253 by the end of his second term. Reagan averaged 47 per year for 381 total.

 

For a change, SCOTUS did not legislate, they actually followed the US Constitution. If the "people" want to remove the freedom of religion provisions in the Constitution, they will have to write, pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.

This is why our system is so good, the will of the people can be heard, but they have to follow a specific path to make it a law.

Again, Executive Orders issued by a president are not unusual, what is unusual is how it is being used to skirt the legislative branch by this president..

 

Nothing in the Constitution provides any rights at all to - or even acknowledges the existence OF - corporations, to my best knowledge.

 

That's actually the weakest point of argument. There was a time when the majority of Americans supported having slaves, but it was still wrong. A democracy has to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of the majority, otherwise it's just dictatorship by popular vote.

 

They did not find for a corporation per se, they found for a privately held company which is incorporated but does not publicly trade their stock. If YOU have a problem with the ruling I suggest that you apply for citizenship, so that you can voice your displeasure in the voting booth.

 

Agreed. I was making a point in response to a previous post where someone said that this was a ruling in favor of the people. In reality, this went against the people both in legal principle and in terms of popularity. This ruling allows a corporation (again, something which doesn't exist according to the Constitution) to require those under it to follow "its" religious convictions. It is a direct case of where an individual's rights should end, when they interfere in the right of another to live their life with correct medical care.