Supreme Court: "closely Held" Companies Do Not Have To Pay Fo

[BG45]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby in Obamacare Case

 

(CNN) -- [Breaking news update, posted at 10:27 a.m. ET]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that closely held companies cannot be required to pay to cover some types of contraceptives for their employees, ending its term with a narrow legal and political setback for a controversial part of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law.

[Earlier version, posted at 6:59 a.m. ET]

(CNN) -- The biggest case of the Supreme Court's term involves a three-headed, hot-button appeal combining abortion rights, religious liberty, and Obamacare. It's also the last one, and a ruling is due on Monday.

The legal and social pique may not reach the heights of two years ago when the justices narrowly preserved the Affordable Care Act and its key funding provision in a blockbuster ruling.

But the stakes are still large, and the decision could serve as a primer for other pending challenges to the health law championed by President Barack Obama and in play as a campaign issue this midterm season.
Do corporations have freedom of religion?
Contraception pits GOP against Obama

The issue before the justices is whether Obamacare can mandate contraception coverage specifically for certain businesses that object for religious reasons.
Photos: Today\'s Supreme Court Photos: Today's Supreme Court

"This case isn't that practically important, except for the employees and businesses involved. There just aren't a huge number of those," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a Washington appellate attorney.

"But everyone can agree the social questions presented-- about when people can follow their religious convictions, and when people are entitled to contraception care-- are truly important," he said.

Hundreds of advocates and demonstrators representing both sides are expected to rally in front of the courthouse on Capitol Hill.

Contraception mandate

The section of law in dispute requires for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.

A number of companies equate some of the covered drugs, such as the so-called "morning-after" pill, as causing abortion.

The specific question presented was whether these companies can refuse, on the sincere claim it would violate their owners' long-established moral beliefs.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

"How does a corporation exercise religion?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor at March's oral arguments, summarizing perhaps the key constitutional question at hand.

"This is a religious question and it's a moral question," added Justice Samuel Alito, suggesting the businesses have such a right. "You want us to provide a definitive secular answer."

Conestoga, Hobby Lobby

The justices have a good deal of discretion to frame the competing issues and could reach a limited "compromise" through narrow statutory interpretation.

They could conclude individual owners can make the religious freedom claim, bypassing the corporate rights argument, but still give female workers the flexibility to get covered drugs.

The court weighed two related appeals from Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet maker, and Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based retail giant that will have more than 700 arts-and-crafts stores nationwide by year's end.

Both corporations emphasized their desire to operate in harmony with biblical principles while competing in a secular marketplace. That includes their leaders' publicly stated opposition to abortion.

The case presented a complex mix of legal, regulatory, and constitutional concerns over such thorny issues as faith, abortion, corporate power, executive agency discretion, and congressional intent.

Health law impact

The political stakes are large, especially for the future effectiveness of the health law, which marks its fourth anniversary this year.

The botched rollout last fall of HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare website, has become another political flashpoint along with other issues that many Republicans say proves the law is unworkable.

They have made Obamacare a key campaign issue in their fight to overtake the Senate, and retain control of the House.

Supporters of the law fear a high court setback on the contraception mandate will lead to other healthcare challenges on religion grounds, such as do-not-resuscitate orders and vaccine coverage. More broadly, many worry giving corporations religious freedom rights could affect laws on employment, safety, and civil rights.

The abortion link

The Hahn family, owners of Conestoga, and the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, said some of the mandated contraception prevent human embryos from being implanted in a woman's womb, which the plaintiffs equate with abortion.

That includes Plan B contraception, which some have called the "morning after" pill, and intrauterine devices or IUDs used by an estimated 2 million American women.

A key issue for the bench has been interpreting a 1993 federal law requiring the government to seek the "least burdensome" and narrowly tailored means for any law that interferes with religious convictions.

Chief Justice John Roberts could be the "swing" vote as he was two years ago when siding with the court's more liberal members to allow the law's "individual mandate" to go into effect.

That provision requires most Americans to get health insurance or pay a financial penalty. It is seen as the key funding mechanism to ensure near-universal health coverage.

Searching for compromise?

But how will the divided court rule this time?

Unanimous opinions in recent days on separate issues involving presidential recess appointments, cellphone searches by police, and abortion clinic protests suggest Roberts may be on a private campaign to push his colleagues to rule narrowly to reach consensus.

Such an approach usually involves both left- and right-leaning justices reluctantly giving a little.

"At oral argument it seemed likely a majority of the justices were looking for a compromise," said Goldstein, "in which the closely held for-profit businesses wouldn't themselves have to pay for contraception care, but the employees would get it, maybe through the exchanges, maybe financed by the federal government."

Compromise may be nice, but as other contentious cases earlier this term demonstrated, it is not always easy to achieve.

Separate decisions this spring involving political campaign donations and voter-approved affirmative action limits produced especially sharp 5-4 divisions.

Under the Affordable Care Act, financial penalties of up to $100 per day, per employee can be levied on firms that refuse to provide comprehensive health coverage. Hobby Lobby, which has about 13,000 workers, estimates the penalty could cost it $475 million a year.

The church-state issue now in the spotlight involves rules negotiated between the Obama administration and various outside groups. Under the changes, churches and houses of worship are completely exempt from the contraception mandate.

Other nonprofit, religiously affiliated groups, such as church-run hospitals, parochial schools and charities must either offer coverage or have a third-party insurer provide separate benefits without the employer's direct involvement. Lawsuits in those cases are pending in several federal appeals courts.

Second generation

Monday's decision could signal how the court will approach other lawsuits against the health care law.

"We're now getting the second generation of challenges to Obamacare-- about the actual adoption of the statute, and its core provisions," said Goldstein. "We're probably going to see cases over the next five to ten years, as more and more details about the law get put into effect."

 

 

A little good news for the morning.

[Perigrina]

I hope the article is right about this decision representing a trend.

[blazeingstar]

Wow.  Did not expect this.

[John Ryan]

Now if only the Supreme Court would rule that my tax dollars do not have to go to predator drones that kill babies with rockets while they are asleep in their crib.

Edited June 30, 2014 by John Ryan

[KnightofChrist]

Wow.  Did not expect this.

 

I had already assumed they would rule against the religious liberty of private companies and the people. 

 

Now if only the Supreme Court would rule that my tax dollars do not have to go to predator drones that kill babies with rockets while they are asleep in their crib.

 

I agree.

[Credo in Deum]

Thank you, Lord! 

[Nihil Obstat]

Now if only the Supreme Court would rule that my tax dollars do not have to go to predator drones that kill babies with rockets while they are asleep in their crib.

Agreed, Guess you are not wrong about everything. ;)

[CrossCuT]

HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED...oh wait.

 

Good and bad news for us I guess. Good news maybe we wont have to pay for contraceptives...bad news is we lose something to complain about. 

[Credo in Deum]

HELP HELP IM BEING OPPRESSED...oh wait.

 

Good and bad news for us I guess. Good news maybe we wont have to pay for contraceptives...bad news is we lose something to complain about. 

 

Is it boredom that causes you to make these types of statements?  Can't we just try to enjoy a thread where we all agree on something for once? 

[CrossCuT]

Is it boredom that causes you to make these types of statements?  Can't we just try to enjoy a thread where we all agree on something for once? 

 

No  its irritation and peves. 

 

But youre right. I shouldnt derail the thread. 

 

 

*throws glitter*

[CrossCuT]

[spoiler]I am however afraid of what this will mean in the future if we begin using this precedent in the never ending "corporations are people with rights" argument. Which could then allow them to inject much more money into campaigns and political parties than individuals can. [/spoiler]

[Credo in Deum]

No  its irritation and peves. 

 

But youre right. I shouldnt derail the thread. 

 

 

*throws glitter*

[fides' Jack]

Thank God for this.  I was expecting the opposite ruling.

[fides' Jack]

Anyone want to weigh in?: What's a closely-held company?

[MIKolbe]

Anyone want to weigh in?: What's a closely-held company?

Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded.