3 Ways the Supreme Court Could Rule on Contraception

The U.S. flag flies in front of the West Front of the Supreme Court Building on August 7, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be sworn in as the 111th justice of the Supreme Court on Saturday.
National Journal
Sam Baker
March 23, 2014, 7:56 a.m.

The leg­al battle over Obama­care’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date is es­sen­tially tied as it heads in­to Tues­day’s Su­preme Court ar­gu­ments. Both sides have suffered some bad losses in lower courts, and the weak­nesses that hurt them be­fore could spell trouble again on Tues­day.

The Court has com­bined two cases on the birth-con­trol man­date — one the gov­ern­ment won, and one it lost. Both chal­lenges were filed by for-profit com­pan­ies that say the man­date vi­ol­ates the re­li­gious be­liefs of their own­ers.

Five fed­er­al ap­peals courts have heard such chal­lenges, and their rul­ings are a mess of con­flicts. The courts not only dis­agree with each oth­er, they’re also di­vided in­tern­ally. As judges agreed on one ques­tion but dis­agreed on an­oth­er, the 10th Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals cobbled to­geth­er four dif­fer­ent ma­jor­it­ies in one rul­ing against the man­date. (That case, filed by Hobby Lobby, is one of the chal­lenges be­fore the Su­preme Court this week.)

In oth­er words, there are good reas­ons why each side might lose at the Su­preme Court.

Why the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion could lose

Keep in mind the flow of the ar­gu­ments in this case. Two for-profit com­pan­ies have sued, ar­guing that the con­tra­cep­tion man­date vi­ol­ates their re­li­gious free­dom. So there are two ques­tions: Do these cor­por­a­tions (or their own­ers) have the right to sue? And if they do, does the man­date vi­ol­ate their re­li­gious free­dom?

The Justice De­part­ment has won a few cases on the first ques­tion, but nev­er on the second.

When the Justice De­part­ment has lost on the threshold ques­tion of cor­por­ate rights, it has al­ways lost on the un­der­ly­ing chal­lenge to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date. Any time an ap­peals court de­cided that a com­pany or its own­er could ex­er­cise re­li­gion, it went on to find that the birth-con­trol man­date at least seems likely to vi­ol­ate that re­li­gious free­dom. And so the only way the ad­min­is­tra­tion has ever won on the man­date it­self is to close the door be­fore a court even gets there — which could prove hard to do be­fore the Su­preme Court.

Why the chal­lengers could lose

The biggest hurdle for the man­date’s chal­lengers is the mar­quee ques­tion of wheth­er they can prac­tice a re­li­gion. In one of the cases be­fore the Su­preme Court this week, a cab­in­et-mak­ing com­pany called Con­es­toga chal­lenged the man­date as an af­front to the be­liefs of its own­ers, the Hahn fam­ily. The 3rd Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, sid­ing with the Justice De­part­ment, said the cor­por­a­tion and the people who own it are two dif­fer­ent en­tit­ies.

“Since Con­es­toga is dis­tinct from the Hahns, the Man­date does not ac­tu­ally re­quire the Hahns to do any­thing. All re­spons­ib­il­ity for com­ply­ing with the Man­date falls on Con­es­toga,” the court wrote.

An­oth­er way the ad­min­is­tra­tion could lose, but not as badly

Chief Justice John Roberts likes to keep the high court’s rul­ings as nar­row as pos­sible on most big is­sues. He looks for ways to min­im­ize the Court’s foot­print by avoid­ing the biggest ques­tion — which, in this case, would be wheth­er cor­por­a­tions are pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment’s “free ex­er­cise” clause.

There’s a reas­on­ably clear way for him to do that here: Avoid the ques­tion of wheth­er cor­por­a­tions are people, and fo­cus on wheth­er — in these spe­cif­ic cases — people are their cor­por­a­tions.

Both Hobby Lobby and Con­es­toga are closely held com­pan­ies, con­trolled en­tirely or al­most en­tirely by their own­ers. The liber­tari­an Cato In­sti­tute sug­ges­ted in a sup­port­ing brief that be­cause these two com­pan­ies are con­trolled by their own­ers, the Court could rule in their fa­vor without set­ting a broad­er pre­ced­ent that cor­por­a­tions in gen­er­al can prac­tice re­li­gion.

“Wheth­er a for-profit cor­por­a­tion can ex­er­cise re­li­gion is an in­ter­est­ing the­or­et­ic­al ques­tion. But there is no need to ad­dress that the­or­et­ic­al ques­tion when le­gis­la­tion reg­u­lat­ing a cor­por­a­tion also re­stricts the re­li­gious liberty of the in­di­vidu­als who foun­ded, own, and dir­ect the af­fairs of that cor­por­a­tion,” Cato wrote in its brief.

Such a rul­ing wouldn’t be pre­cisely down the middle — it would open up more ex­emp­tions to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date, and the Justice De­part­ment is adam­ant that cor­por­a­tions and their stock­hold­ers must re­main sep­ar­ate leg­al en­tit­ies. But it could be a way to skirt the out­come lib­er­als fear most — a broad and ex­pli­cit ex­pan­sion of cor­por­ate per­son­hood — if the Court’s con­ser­vat­ive ma­jor­ity ap­pears to be lean­ing against the birth-con­trol man­date.

The two cases are Se­beli­us v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Con­es­toga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Se­beli­us.

Why the Obama administration could lose

Keep in mind the flow of the ar­gu­ments in this case. Two for-profit com­pan­ies have sued, ar­guing that the con­tra­cep­tion man­date vi­ol­ates their re­li­gious free­dom. So there are two ques­tions: Do these cor­por­a­tions (or their own­ers) have the right to sue? And if they do, does the man­date vi­ol­ate their re­li­gious free­dom?

The Justice De­part­ment has won a few cases on the first ques­tion, but nev­er on the second.

When the Justice De­part­ment has lost on the threshold ques­tion of cor­por­ate rights, it has al­ways lost on the un­der­ly­ing chal­lenge to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date. Any time an ap­peals court de­cided that a com­pany or its own­er could ex­er­cise re­li­gion, it went on to find that the birth-con­trol man­date at least seems likely to vi­ol­ate that re­li­gious free­dom. And so the only way the ad­min­is­tra­tion has ever won on the man­date it­self is to close the door be­fore a court even gets there — which could prove hard to do be­fore the Su­preme Court.

Why the challengers could lose

The biggest hurdle for the man­date’s chal­lengers is the mar­quee ques­tion of wheth­er they can prac­tice a re­li­gion. In one of the cases be­fore the Su­preme Court this week, a cab­in­et-mak­ing com­pany called Con­es­toga chal­lenged the man­date as an af­front to the be­liefs of its own­ers, the Hahn fam­ily. The 3rd Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, sid­ing with the Justice De­part­ment, said the cor­por­a­tion and the people who own it are two dif­fer­ent en­tit­ies.

“Since Con­es­toga is dis­tinct from the Hahns, the Man­date does not ac­tu­ally re­quire the Hahns to do any­thing. All re­spons­ib­il­ity for com­ply­ing with the Man­date falls on Con­es­toga,” the court wrote.

Another way the administration could lose, but not as badly

Chief Justice John Roberts likes to keep the high court’s rul­ings as nar­row as pos­sible on most big is­sues. He looks for ways to min­im­ize the Court’s foot­print by avoid­ing the biggest ques­tion — which, in this case, would be wheth­er cor­por­a­tions are pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment’s “free ex­er­cise” clause.

There’s a reas­on­ably clear way for him to do that here: Avoid the ques­tion of wheth­er cor­por­a­tions are people, and fo­cus on wheth­er — in these spe­cif­ic cases — people are their cor­por­a­tions.

Both Hobby Lobby and Con­es­toga are closely held com­pan­ies, con­trolled en­tirely or al­most en­tirely by their own­ers. The liber­tari­an Cato In­sti­tute sug­ges­ted in a sup­port­ing brief that be­cause these two com­pan­ies are con­trolled by their own­ers, the Court could rule in their fa­vor without set­ting a broad­er pre­ced­ent that cor­por­a­tions in gen­er­al can prac­tice re­li­gion.

“Wheth­er a for-profit cor­por­a­tion can ex­er­cise re­li­gion is an in­ter­est­ing the­or­et­ic­al ques­tion. But there is no need to ad­dress that the­or­et­ic­al ques­tion when le­gis­la­tion reg­u­lat­ing a cor­por­a­tion also re­stricts the re­li­gious liberty of the in­di­vidu­als who foun­ded, own, and dir­ect the af­fairs of that cor­por­a­tion,” Cato wrote in its brief.

Such a rul­ing wouldn’t be pre­cisely down the middle — it would open up more ex­emp­tions to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date, and the Justice De­part­ment is adam­ant that cor­por­a­tions and their stock­hold­ers must re­main sep­ar­ate leg­al en­tit­ies. But it could be a way to skirt the out­come lib­er­als fear most — a broad and ex­pli­cit ex­pan­sion of cor­por­ate per­son­hood — if the Court’s con­ser­vat­ive ma­jor­ity ap­pears to be lean­ing against the birth-con­trol man­date.

The two cases are Se­beli­us v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Con­es­toga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Se­beli­us.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×