Written by Don Byrd
The 6th Circuit yesterday joined the conversation about religious exemptions from the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act. In a 3-0 ruling, the appeals panel rejected a corporation’s call for an injunction against the mandate. Holding that the corporation is not a person capable of exercising religion, the court reasoned, the mandate does not place a burden on the owners.
The Christian Science Monitor reports:
“The decision to comply with the mandate falls on Autocam, not the Kennedys,” the court said. “For this reason, the Kennedys cannot bring their claims in their individual capacities under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)], nor can Autocam assert the Kennedys’ claims on their behalf.”
The court next addressed whether RFRA protects a corporation from government infringement of religious rights. The Sixth Circuit panel noted that RFRA established a right to sue for any “person” whose religious exercise has been burdened.
“We agree with the government that Autocam is not a ‘person’ capable of ‘religious exercise’ as intended by RFRA,” the panel said.
The appeals court said that if it agreed with lawyers for Autocam, such a ruling would “lead to a significant expansion of the scope of the rights the Free Exercise Clause protected.”
Two different circuits now have held corporations cannot exercise religion. A third has taken the opposite view, barring enforcement of the mandate against a for-profit corporation, setting up a conflict that seems destined for Supreme Court review.
