Written by Don Byrd
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will hear the appeal in two cases involving religious objections to the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the 10th Circuit ruled in June that some for-profit corporations may be “persons” capable of exercising religious freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As a result, the mandate substantially burdens the company’s religious exercise without a compelling government interest that requires it. The court emphasized that because the law exempts so many religious employers, the government cannot argue further exemptions are required by a compelling interest.
In Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., the 3rd Circuit in July reached the opposite conclusion on the threshold question of whether a for-profit corporation is capable of exercising religion. The court emphasized that a corporation is a distinct legal entity from its owners. Indeed, they remark, that separation is the purpose of the corporate form. As such, the corporation cannot exercise religious freedom rights, which are “one of the more uniquely human rights provided by the Constitution.” Likewise, they declined to recognize in religious exercise rights of the owners that are implicated by the mandate, which the court found imposes requirements on the company, not its owners.
In today’s orders, the Supreme Court agreed to revisit both disputes. Conceivably, resolving these two cases will give the Court the opportunity to answer the question of a corporation’s capacity to exercise religion. If the answer is yes, they likely would wade into the question of whether the mandate substantially burdens that exercise and whether the government’s interest in the case is a compelling one that requires the mandate’s application to all for-profit corporations.
SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston anticipates oral arguments are likely to occur in March, though no announcement of the schedule has been made.
