Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 US ___ (2014), is an important decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court that allows a closely-held nonprofit company to be exempt from a legally objectionable law, if there is a less restrictive way to advance the interests of the law, in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Religion Records Act (RFRA). This is the first time the court has recognized a nonprofit company's claim to religious beliefs, but is limited to a tightly held company. The decision does not address whether these companies are protected by religious freedom of religion clause from the First Amendment to the Constitution.
For these companies, the majority of Courts directly violate the mandate of contraception, a regulation adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which requires employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by 5-4 votes. The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that less restrictive alternatives were provided for religious nonprofits, until the Court issued an order 3 days later, effectively ending the alternative, replacing it with a government sponsored alternative for every female employee of a closely held company that does not want to provide birth control. The decision is considered part of the political controversy regarding the Law and Affordability of Affordable Care in the United States.
Video Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
​​â € <â €
Federal law
Freedom of Religion Recovery Act
The United States Supreme Court ruled in the Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that one might not oppose the law of neutral general application even as an expression of religious beliefs. "To allow this," Justice Scalia wrote, citing the decision of 1878 Reynolds v. United States, "will make religious doctrines of religious belief superior to the laws of the state, and as a result to allow every citizen to become a law for himself." He writes that the law generally does not necessarily fulfill strict supervision standards, because such a requirement would create a "private right to disregard common law". Close supervision will require the law to be the least restrictive means to advance the interests of an attractive government.
In 1993, the US Congress responded by issuing the Freedom of Religion Recovery Act (RFRA), which required close scrutiny when the common application neutral law "substantially burdens [s] of one's religious practice". The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Land Use Law and Institutional Institutions Institution (RLUIPA) to redefine religious practice as any religious exercise, "whether forced or not, for a religious belief system" , which must be "interpreted for the broad protection of religious practice, to the extent permitted by the provisions of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the RFRA constitutionality as applied to federal law in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Affordable Care Act
Of Americans who have health insurance, most are covered by health insurance sponsored by companies. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relied on Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to determine what type of preventive care for women should be included in specific employer-based health plans. HHS frees religious masters (their integrated church and auxiliaries, church associations and religious orders), non-profit organizations that object to whatever contraception is needed, employers who give bad plans (which have not had specific changes before March 23 2010), and employers with fewer than 50 employees. HRSA decided that all twenty contraceptives approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be included. Companies that refuse to be fined $ 100 per individual per day, or they can change their health coverage with higher wages and calibrated taxes.
The specific content contested by the plaintiff
The plaintiffs believe that life begins at conception that they equate with conception, and objected to their business that provides health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives believed by plaintiffs, contrary to scientific consensus, preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. The plaintiffs believe these forms of contraception are abortions.
- Emergency contraception pills
- levonorgestrel (sold under the Plan B trademarks among others)
- ulipristal acetate (sold under the Ella trademark)
- Intrauterine Device (IUD)
- Copper IUD (sold under the ParaGard trademark among others)
- Hormonal IUD (sold under the brand name Mirena and Skyla)
Lower court history
In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against enforcement of contraceptive rules under the RFRA and First Amendment Free Training Clause. On November 19, 2012, US District Judge Joe L. Heaton rejected Hobby Lobby's request for a preliminary court order. On December 26, 2012, Judge Sonia Sotomayor issued an in-room opinion which refused a pending appeal. In March 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit gave the trial of the case. In June, the appellate court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a person of religious freedom. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the five majority judges, more than three different judges. Neil Gorsuch voted with the majority and also wrote opinions about the case. The court ordered the government to stop enforcing the rules of contraception on Hobby Lobby and send the case back to the district court, which gave the preliminary injunction in July. In September, the government filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Two other federal appellate courts are opposed to the contraceptive coverage rule, while the other two support it.
The case was previously titled Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby . Sylvia Burwell was automatically replaced as an applicant when she was approved by the United States Senate as Secretary of Health and Human Services after being nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Kathleen Sebelius following Sebelius' resignation on 10 April 2014.
Maps Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
AS. Supreme Court Considerations
Reception and editing
On November 26, the Supreme Court accepted and consolidated the case with Conestoga Wood Specialities v. Sebelius. Two dozen amicus briefs support the government, and five dozens support the company. The American Freedom Law Center statement states that birth control harms women because men only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires." Another brief article states that the contraceptive rule leads to "maximization of sexual activity". Two of these summaries are contradictory to the RFRA constitutionality. Two briefs that are not officially siding against one another about whether the right to religion applies to companies. One of these descriptions argues that if shareholders are separated by the corporate veil from corporate liability, then their religious values ​​are also separate from the company. It mentions the rules at Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald made against JWM owners of American Investments whose contracts are violated for racial discrimination. Brief explanation that if JWM Investments can not suffer discrimination through its owner, then Hobby Lobby can not bear the burden of religion through its owner. Two brief reports are filed by LGBT groups who are concerned that future anti-discrimination laws will be pre-emptively disadvantaged if employers can claim as religious exceptions.
Arguments and deliberations
The oral argument was held on March 25, 2014 for 30 minutes over an hour. The three women in the court centered their questions on Hobby Lobby's lawyer, Paul Clement, while people focused on the administrative attorney, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Public Defender. Justice Sotomayor quotes the verdict from the United States v. Lee (1982) says that an employer can not remove employees from legal rights because of religious beliefs. Clement replies that Lee is not applicable because it is a challenge to taxes rather than a significant burden. Sotomayor said that instead of paying a penalty charge, Hobby Lobby can replace its health care at a cost equal to higher wages and calibrated taxes, which the government will use to pay for employee health care. Toward the end of Clement's argument, Justice Kennedy expressed concern over the rights of employees who may disagree with the religious beliefs of their employers. When Verrilli argues that the verdict in Cutter v. Wilkinson requires the court to consider its impact on third parties in each RFRA case, Judge Scalia said that RFRA does not require courts to balance the interests of religious objections to the interests of other individuals. Verilli goes back to Lee, saying that giving exemptions to employers should not impose employers' religious beliefs on employees.
Court Opinion
The majority opinion
On June 30, 2014, Associate Justice Samuel Alito delivered the court ruling. Four judges (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) joined him to impose his HHS mandate, as applied to companies held firmly to religious objections, and to prevent plaintiffs being forced to provide contraception under their health care plan. The ruling was achieved by law, citing the RFRA, because its mandate is not the "least strict" method of implementing government interests. The decision did not answer Hobby Lobby's claim under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
The Court believes that the purpose of extending the right to the company is to protect the rights of shareholders, officers, and employees. It is said that "it allows Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protecting religious freedom from Green and Hahn." The court found that nonprofit companies could be considered people under RFRA. He noted that HHS treats nonprofit companies as people in the RFRA sense. The court stated, "there is no imaginable definition of the term that includes natural persons and non-profit companies, but not non-profit companies." Responding to the advice of the lower court judge that the nonprofit's "just make money" objective, the court said, "Non-profit corporations, with proprietary approval, support a wide range of charities, and it is not altogether. "The court rejected the notion that" Nations have no tradition of exempting non-profit corporations from common law, "pointing to a federal law of 1993 excluding health care entities covered by engaging in" certain related activities with abortion ".
The court ruled that the HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdened religious practice, rejecting the argument that a $ 2,000 penalty per employee for dropping insurance coverage is less than the average cost of health insurance. Responding to the HHS argument that the provision of coverage does not necessarily result in the destruction of the embryo, the Court insists that the argument avoids the question of substantial burden that should be handled by the Court. The court added, quoting the Jesuit's moral manual, that his argument is also a religious question about morality that enables other people's immoral actions, which HHS has given "binding national reply". The Court believes that federal courts should not answer religious questions because they will essentially decide whether a particular belief has a flaw. The Court believes that "companies will face a competitive disadvantage in retaining and attracting skilled workers," that increased wages for employees to buy individual coverage will be more expensive than group health insurance, that every pay rise should take into account income tax. , and that the employer can not cut the penalty.
The court found that it is not necessary to decide whether the HHS contraceptive mandate is increasingly interested in the government and declare that HHS does not indicate that its mandate is "the least restrictive way to advance interesting interests". The Court believes that the simplest alternative is "for the Government to bear the cost..." and HHS has not shown that it is not a "viable alternative". The Court said that the RFRA could "require the creation of a completely new program". The court also pointed out that HHS has excluded any non-profit organization from paying for any required contraception by allowing it to legalize its religious objections to the issuer, which should "[p] divide separate payments for each contraceptive service to be borne". However, the court said the approach may not be the least restrictive alternative to all religious claims.
The Court concluded by discussing "the possibility that discrimination in recruitment, for example on the ground of race, may be disguised as a religious practice to avoid legal sanctions". The court said that their decision "does not provide such a shield", and that "the prohibition of racial discrimination is appropriately tailored to achieve that critical objective." The court also said that the requirement to pay taxes despite religious objections differs from the mandate of contraception because "there is no more restrictive alternative than the categorical requirement to pay taxes." The Court acknowledged the disagreement "about forcing federal courts to apply RFRA to a number of claims made by plaintiffs seeking religious exclusion from common law...", noting that this point was "forcibly made by the Courts at Smith ". The court responded by saying, "Congress, in enacting the RFRA, takes the position that" an interesting test of interest as set out in the Federal Court's previous ruling is a workable test for striking a reasonable balance between religious freedom and competing against previous government interests. "The wisdom of the congressional assessment in this regard is not our business, our responsibility is to enforce the RFRA as written, and below the standards formulated by the RFRA, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful."
Concurring opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an appropriate opinion, responding to "strong and respected differences of opinion," stressing the limited nature of the verdict and saying that the government "makes the case that the mandate serves the Government's strong interest in providing the necessary insurance coverage to protect the health of female employees "but that the RFRA minimum-restriction requirements are not met because" existing frameworks exist, are recognized, applicable, and have been implemented to provide coverage, "one that HHS has designed for corporate profits with religious objections. "The RFRA requires the Government to use these less restrictive means.As explained by the Court, this existing model, appropriately designed for this problem, may be sufficient to distinguish between instant cases of many other more difficult and expensive cases to accommodate government programs for countless religious claims based on allegations of legally free exercise rights. "(Kennedy, J., concurring, pp. 3, 4)
Disagreements
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg conveyed a major disagreement, united by Judge Sotomayor in full and by Judge Breyer and Kagan for all except Part III-C-1 on "whether a company qualifies as a 'person' who is capable of practicing religion". Ginsburg began, "In a surprising decision, the Court held that commercial firms, including corporations, together with partnerships and sole proprietorships, could opt out of any law (only saving tax laws) which they deemed incompatible with their religious beliefs held firm. Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã , Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã... Attract government interests in uniform compliance with the law, and losses based on the opt-out of religion impose on others, hold no power, the Court decides , at least when there are 'less restrictive alternatives.' And such an alternative, according to the Court, will always exist anytime, in lieu of burdening companies claiming religious liberation, the government, that is, the general public, can take tabs. "
He challenged an unprecedented view of the majority of non-profit religions saying "Up to this litigation, no decision of this Court recognizes the qualifications of nonprofit organizations for the religious exclusion of generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of precedent as it is what is expected, because the practice of religion is a characteristic of natural persons, not an artificial legal entity... Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of those who share the same religious beliefs of corporations Workers who support the operations of corporations- the company generally does not come from a religious community. "In response to the majority argument that the government should" bear the cost "of contraceptives, Ginsburg said that" the only source of federal funds dedicated to family planning services... "is not designed to absorb the need not fulfilled from those who sud ah is insured. He noted that "less restrictive alternatives" have not been written into law by Congress. Ginsburg warned, "The court, I am afraid, has penetrated into the minefield..."
Judge Breyer and Kagan wrote differently on one paragraph, saying that "the plaintiff's challenge to contraceptive coverage requirements fails on benefits" and that they "need not and do not decide whether the nonprofit company or its owner can bring the claim under the 1993 Freedom of Religion Recovery Act. "
Reaction
Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby, said, "Today, the state's supreme court has reaffirmed the importance of religious freedom as one of the basic principles of our country.The court's decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live their faith. "
CEO Conestoga Anthony Hahn said, "Americans do not have to give up their freedom when they open a family business."
Organization
Conservative and pro-life groups praised the ruling. The National Review says that the Supreme Court ruled "[lead] the Alliance defends the freedom of lawyer Matt Bowman to call the Hobby Lobby an inclusive decision 'that promotes the freedom of all people.' List of Susan B. Anthony President Marjorie Dannenfelser says, "This is a great victory for religious freedom - the foundation of our convictions, in the course of our religious beliefs, there are certain things we should not be doing.This is why we are at a turning point. religious leaders will no longer be ordered to take actions that our religion can not take. "President of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins said," The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. The Supreme Court agrees that the government is acting too far by mandating that family business owners should violate their conscience, under the threat of a crippling fines. "The US Catholic Bishops Conference said," We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to acknowledge that Americans can continue follow their faith when they run a business family... Now is the time to redouble our efforts to build a culture that fully respects religion. freedom."
Pro-choice groups and civil-liberties criticized the decision. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said, "Today, the Supreme Court ruling against women and American families, giving the boss the right to discriminate against women and denying their employees access to birth control scopes is very disappointing and disturbing decisions that will preventing some women, especially those who work hourly wages and struggling to make ends meet, from getting birth control. "Legal deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union Louise Melling said," This is a very disturbing decision. the country's highest has said that business owners can use their religious beliefs to deny their employees with the advantage that they are guaranteed by law. "
In an editorial, the New England Journal of Medicine called the decision "a setback for both ACA's basic goals of access to universal and specialized health care for women's health care", voicing concern that "in assessing competing claims about abortion and birth control, the majority of Courts focus on religious claims from companies without discussing scientific or medical opinion. "In JAMA Internal Medicine, Alta Charo writes that" it is consistent with disturbing tendencies between courts and legislatures for wrongs interpret or misuse scientific information in the context of women's rights and reproductive health, the Supreme Court's decision to ignore the difference received between contraception and abortion. "Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of America, representing 90% of certified gynecologists in the US, supports the bill to abrogate rules > Hobby Lobby .
Government
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: "Congress needs to take action to solve the problems that have been made and the government is ready to work with them to do so." President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves instead of their bosses deciding to Today's decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies. "
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Says, "If the Supreme Court would not protect women's access to health care, the Democrats would.we will continue to struggle to maintain women's access to contraceptive coverage and keep the boss out of the room checks."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "[T] he Obama administration can not trample on religious freedom that Americans hold fast."
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced RFRA in 1993, said the law "is not intended to extend the same protection to nonprofit companies, whose goal is to profit from open markets."
Chairman of the Board John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "The current canceled mandate would require non-profit companies to choose between violating a constitutionally protected belief or pay a crippling fine, which would force them to fire employees or close their doors."
Home minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "Although the Court restricted their decision to 'firmly held' the company, this ruling will soon affect the lives of millions of women across the country More than 90 percent of American businesses are 'near held' such as Koch Industries and Bechtel Women should not be forced to jump through the extra circle to secure the basic healthcare they need.Ensure employers and CEOs to limit the health care available to employees is a grave breach of their workers' religious rights. not his boss's business. "
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) Said, "Today's victory in the Hobby Lobby case is great news - but now there is no time to rest, we can not depend on the courts alone to defend our religious freedom."
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the freedom of religion of all Americans, individually or collectively.The idea that freedom of religion belongs only to a few, and even then only privately, our nation, our laws and our Constitution, and as the Supreme Court has said today, the Freedom of Religion Recovery Act can not be more clear in saying the religious freedom of all Americans should be equally protected and not an unnecessary burden.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said, "I am very encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the right to freedom of religion of the Green Hobby Lobby family."
Aftermath
Cases following SCOTUS ruling
Forbes reported that following the decision at Burwell v. Hobby Lobby , "The Supreme Court cleared the assessment of Eden Foods and sent the case back to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration."
On November 6, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided to hear arguments for the case of Zubik v. Burwell combined with six other challenges - including Priests for Life v. Burwell , University of Southern Nazarene v. Burwell , University of Geneva v. Burwell , Roman Catholic Bishop Washington v. Burwell , East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell , Little Sisters of the Poor Home for Age v. Burwell - to the mandate of Obamacare Contraception.
Order of Wheaton College
On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to its suggested approach as a less restrictive alternative at Hobby Lobby, where the plaintiff would send the form (EBSA Form 700) to his insurance company, which would pay for contraception. In an unsigned emergency order for Wheaton College in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying the insurer, Wheaton could notify the government. Once notified, the government must notify the publisher. Wheaton believes that by transferring the obligation to cover contraception to insurance companies, it triggers the obligation. Emergency orders are not a decision on the merits of Wheaton's religious objections. The court said "None of these interim orders affect the ability of applicant employees and students to obtain, at no cost, various FDA-approved contraceptives."
In a 15 page difference followed by two other women in court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor criticized the reason for the majority: "The Wheaton application comes a long way near the high bar needed to secure emergency orders from this court... Court action in this case Case creates fees and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, and they ignore the simple truth: Governments should be allowed to handle basic public administration tasks in a way that conforms to common sense. "
Chief Justice Sotomayor gave the same temporary order to the Little Sisters of the Poor by the end of 2013, just before the mandate was enacted.
In a dueling comment between regular SCOTUSblog contributor Marty Lederman and co-founder Tom Goldstein, Lederman argues that only Form 700 can require an insurance provider to pay for contraceptive coverage. Goldstein argues that existing regulations allow the government to determine alternatives to Form 700. He points out that "The Court does not accept the most aggressive Wheaton argument" that it can not be asked to do anything. He said that the Kennedy Justice agreement was in control and made it clear that RFRA was not violated by asking Wheaton to notify the government.
The revised version of Form EBSA 700, effective August 2014, says "[a] an alternative to using this form, eligible organizations may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eligible organizations have religious objections to provide coverage for all or part of contraceptive services... ".
Implications
Release of religion from laws that apply to the general public
Although the court clearly states that the decision is limited to the contraceptive mandate (Silabus p.Ã, 4-5), the verdict is deemed to have consequences far beyond contraception. Walter Dellinger, a former attorney general, said, "for the first time, commercial firms can successfully claim the religious exclusion of the laws governing others." Fifteen countries have proposed a brief argument that businesses will be able to resist coverage of transfusions, stem cell treatments, and psychiatric care. In line with the dissent, The American Prospect asked, "[W] sick the taxpayer should send a check to the employee if the employer feels that the minimum wage law violates their religious beliefs?" Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that an objection to paying health benefits for same-sex couples will gain appeal. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLT) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights drew their support for the Senate Disapproval Act of Enforcement (ENDA), saying that his religious exemption would allow companies to dismiss or refuse to employ LGBT workers given the < i> Hobby Lobby . NGLT's executive director Rea Carey said, "We have not taken this step lightly, we have pushed this bill for 20 years."
Such concerns are focused on the application of federal RFRA trial courts and are fueled by a national controversy over the RFRA amendment bill of states in Arizona. Douglas Laycock, professor of law at the University of Virginia, said, "All secular leftists have decided" that the RFRA law "is very dangerous because they are more concerned about cases of contraception and gay rights." He said that the RFRA law is misinterpreted because they do not dictate the results that support religious leaders, they only require courts to use the highest supervisory standards on any of the opposing laws. Mark Kernes, Senior Editor and Principal Legal Analyst for AVN magazine stated in an open article, "If Lobby Hobby's decision supports the company's 'right' to not make available birth controls that would prevent women from 'catching' pregnancy, are the same religious companies from arguing that providing access to PrEP drugs like Truvada, which help prevent gay (and, admittedly, everyone) from catching HIV should not be excluded from their health plans? "
Imposing religious beliefs to others
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Law Center for Women, said that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the company has religious beliefs and that "it was never held that religious practice gave licenses to harm others, or violate the rights of third parties." Louise Melling, the deputy director of the ACLU law, said religious freedom "gives us the right to hold our beliefs, but that does not give you the right to impose your beliefs on others, to discriminate against others." The editorial board of The New York Times wrote that the "decision to get rid of accepted corporate legal principles and religious freedom to provide owners of high-earning, well-held firms, an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees. " A Fox News columnist wrote, "... with all the debates about the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby owners, how about their employees' religious beliefs? They are just as important, and should not be trampled on." The director of the United Church of Christ office in Washington, D.C., said the decision "can encourage private employers to claim religious objections to certain health care services, essentially forcing their own religious views on their employees." Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "This is the first time that our court has said that a closely held company has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that... employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees. "The American Progress Center said that the decision" to move toward this court has moved, which speaks of the personality of the company - really treats companies like people, says that the company has its own religion and that should be imposed on its employees. " Leader of the Interfaith Alliance Rev. Welton Gaddy said, "The First Amendment is the best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the strong." Today's decision, which gives them a strong right to impose their religious beliefs on them, around them, is far from the best religious freedom tradition. "
Scholars on the other (including some on the left) disagree, arguing that companies owned and run by liberals will also benefit from the freedom to operate according to their conscience or values ​​- which has not been seen as a " ", because people routinely choose who to associate based on philosophical compatibility.
From a legal perspective, the verdict is about a State that can not impose a practice on a company. It has nothing to do with letting companies impose practices on their employees. Religious views are used here as a defense against enforcement, which is the spirit of the Freedom of Religion Act.
Corporate responsibility
Editor of the New York Times Dorothy J. Samuels uses the warning saying "be careful what you want", speculating that "if the owner indicates that they are not entirely separate from their company - by denying the company employees' control coverage births based on their personal religious beliefs - these cases can be made in future state court litigation that they have waived their right to be protected from responsibility for the company's financial obligations. "UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said," Corporate obligations not associated with the owner, so why should owners be able to link their trust with the company? " Some jurists wrote a brief amicus to the Supreme Court for this case on the grounds of this danger, while scholars at counter parties who include non-profit organizations enjoy liability protection even though their activities are based on religion or other values ​​/causes based on conscience.
See also
- United States corporate law
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 573
- King v. Burwell
- Zubik v. Burwell
- David Zubik
- National Independent Business Federation v. Sebelius
- Sherbert Test
- R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd - The Supreme Court of Canada decides the religious freedom of a company
Notes and references
Note:
Reference:
Further reading
-
Free Religious Exercises by Nearly Maintained Companies: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc (PDF) . Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service . Retrieved August 7 2014 . - Gedicks, Frederick Mark; Koppelman, Andrew (2014). "Invisible Woman: Why Exceptions to the Hobby Lobby Will Break the Establishment Clause" (PDF) . Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc . 67 : 51-66.
- Ewan McGaughey, 'Fascism-Lite in America (or Donald Trump's social ideas)' (2016) TLI Think! Paper 26/2016
- Rosenbaum, Sara (2014). "When Religion Meets Workers' Rights: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties". Milbank Quarterly . 92 (2): 202-206. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12054. PMC 4089368 .
External links
- Scope on SCOTUSblog
- Slipped opinions from the US Supreme Court
- Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius The Tenth Circuit 2013
- Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius W.D. It's OK. 2012
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores , audio arguments https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments