As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments over Obamacare’s contraception mandate, the big question is how far the justices are willing to go.
The cases before the Court on Tuesday clearly threaten the birth-control mandate, but they also have the potential to dramatically reshape the Court’s approach to religion and the rights of corporations. And it will be difficult for the Court to reach the ostensibly smaller question of contraception coverage without tackling broader issues of religious liberty.
Both sides warn that a ruling against them would have long-lasting repercussions.
The mandate’s challengers say the Court would severely undermine basic guarantees of religious freedom — guarantees Congress has explicitly tried to shield from the courts — if it does not allow employers to opt out of the mandate. The Justice Department and its allies, on the other hand, argue that allowing an exemption from the contraception policy would open the door to potentially widespread discrimination.
Lower courts have been all over the place, with fractured decisions that turned on different parts of the complex tangle of issues these cases present. The Supreme Court recently added an extra half hour to Tuesday’s arguments, which legal experts say was probably a nod to the sheer volume of thorny questions these cases raise.
Here’s a quick guide to those questions, the progression the Court will have to work through, and what each side needs to prove in order to win:
Can corporations exercise religion?
The first threshold question here is the biggest issue in either case. The two plaintiffs — Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts retailer, and Conestoga, a cabinet-making company — say the requirement to cover contraception in their employees’ health care plans violates their religious liberties. The Justice Department says that’s impossible: Corporations don’t practice religion and can’t sue to defend it.
The companies are citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which says the government must meet a high standard for laws that burden a “person’s” free exercise of religion. But RFRA doesn’t define a “person.” As the lower court in Hobby Lobby’s suit noted, the Supreme Court has already said, in effect, that corporations are entitled to other First Amendment protections. But the government says those rights have never been extended to religion.
If the justices are inclined to say that corporations can practice religion and file claims under RFRA, it’s looking good for Hobby Lobby. But it’s also possible — perhaps even likely — that the Court will try to avoid answering this question. So, however this one shakes out, the justices can move on to the next standard “¦
Can business owners challenge the mandate?
The religious beliefs being exerted here belong to the companies’ owners. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga have challenged the contraception mandate on behalf of the corporations as well as their owners — the Green family and the Hahn family, respectively. So if the corporate form can’t exercise religion, and therefore doesn’t have standing under RFRA, the question becomes whether the owners can seek an exemption from birth-control coverage.
The lower court in Conestoga’s case said no.
“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 said.
But Hobby Lobby argues in its briefs that separating a person from his or her business could, for example, force a kosher butcher to comply with regulations that require non-kosher practices.
“The government’s attempt to drive a wedge between the Greens and their businesses — where only the former have rights and only the latter suffer burdens — is a misguided shell game,” Hobby Lobby argued.
If the Supreme Court decides that corporations aren’t protected by RFRA and that individuals’ religious beliefs don’t pass through to their corporations, the analysis stops there and the government has basically won. If the court allows either the corporation or individual to sue, it’ll move on to the merits of the contraception mandate.
Does the contraception mandate violate RFRA?
In lower courts, the Justice Department has either successfully stopped the questioning from getting this far, or it has lost.
RFRA prohibits the government from placing a “substantial burden” on religious liberty unless it can prove that the requirement advances a compelling government interest in the least burdensome way possible. Lower courts have agreed that the burden is substantial, as it would require the companies/owners to either violate their religious beliefs or pay millions of dollars in fines.
The Justice Department doesn’t dispute that the owners’ beliefs are sincere, but says the requirement to cover contraception is part of ensuring that all women, no matter where they work, have equal access to an important health care benefit. Federal law already sets standards for employer-based health care coverage, the government argues, and this is just one more requirement. In other words, a religious exemption would relieve the employer of a burden solely by placing a burden on employees.
A slight wrinkle in this part of the debate: Hobby Lobby only objects to four forms of contraception covered by the mandate: two IUDs, and the pills known as Ella and Plan B. It’s willing to cover other FDA-approved contraceptives, including the standard birth-control pill. The challengers have also questioned whether the government’s interest can really be so compelling since overtly religious employers are exempt.
If the Court allows companies to claim a religious exemption from all or part of the contraception mandate, obviously, the Obama administration loses. The question will be how the Court got there, and how broadly it ruled on corporate rights along the way.
What We're Following See More »
"As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July. Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would."
In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal sets out to relieve conservatives of the temptation to back a third-party candidate over Donald Trump. "The thought is more tempting this year than most, but it’s still hard to see how this would accomplish more than electing Hillary Clinton and muddling the message from a Trump defeat. ... The usual presidential result is that the party that splinters hands the election to the other, more united party." But in the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol is having none of it: "Serious people, including serious conservatives, cannot acquiesce in Donald Trump as their candidate. ... Donald Trump should not be president of the United States. The Wall Street Journal cannot bring itself to say that. We can say it, we do say it, and we are proud to act accordingly."
- Nate Cohn, New York Times: "There have been 10-point shifts over the general election season before, even if it’s uncommon. But there isn’t much of a precedent for huge swings in races with candidates as well known as Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. A majority of Americans may not like her, but they say they’re scared of him."
- Roger Simon, PJ Media: "He is particularly fortunate that his opposition, Hillary Clinton, besides still being under threat of indictment and still not having defeated Bernie Sanders (go figure), is a truly uninspiring, almost soporific, figure. ... She's not a star. Trump is. All attention will be on him in the general election. The primaries have shown us what an advantage that is. What that means for American politics may not all be good, but it's true."
- The editors, The Washington Examiner: "At the very least, Trump owes it to the country he boasts he will 'make great again' to try to demonstrate some seriousness about the office he seeks. He owes this even to those who will never consider voting for him. He can start by swearing off grand displays of aggressive and apparently deliberate ignorance. This is not too much to ask."
Humana announced it plans to "exit certain statewide individual markets and products 'both on and off [Obamacare] exchange,' the insurer said in its financial results released Monday." The company also said price hikes may be forthcoming, "commensurate with anticipated levels of risk by state." Its individual-market enrollment was down 21% in the first quarter from a year ago.