The free exercise claim asserted there was promptly rejected on the merits. Next, the Court highlights RFRA’s requirement that the government, if its action substantially burdens a person’s religious observance, must demonstrate that it chose the least restrictive means for furthering a compelling interest. “[B]y imposing a least-restrictive-means test,” the Court suggests, RFRA “went beyond what was required by our pre-Smith decisions.” Ante, at 17, n.
Why is this case important to law students?
A closely held corporation has few shareholders. These shareholders typically hold their shares for the long term and have significant control in or influence on the company. The closely held corporation is often a private corporation, with restrictions on who can hold shares.
Religious Liberty Is The First Freedom: Hobby Lobby Shows How Expansive Government Is Religious Liberty’s Worst Enemy
- The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention.17 One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.
- In addition, the closely held corporation may qualify as an S corporation for tax purposes, allowing income to be passed through to shareholders and/or owners.
- 672, 689 (1971) (plurality); Board of Ed.
- And an IPO could dilute the culture and control the Greens cherish.
- The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group-health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods that they consider to be abortifacients.
The Tenth Circuit granted that motion and reversed in a divided opinion. Contrary to the conclusion of the Third Circuit, the Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law. As explained in Conestoga’s board-adopted “Statement on the Sanctity of Human Life,” the Hahns believe that “human life begins at conception.” 724 F. 3d 377, 382, and n. 5 (CA3 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Did the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion apply in the Hobby Lobby case?
See also Senators Brief 10–13 (none of the cases cited in House or Senate Judiciary Committee reports accompanying RFRA, or mentioned during floor speeches, recognized the free exercise rights of for-profit corporations). 26 See Brief for Appellants in Gallagher, O. T. 1960 No. 11, pp. 16, 28–31 (arguing that corporation “has no ‘religious belief’ or ‘religious liberty,’ and had no standing in court to assert that its free exercise of religion was impaired”). 5 The principal dissent appears to contend that this rule of construction should apply only when defining the “exercise of religion” in an RLUIPA case, but not in a RFRA case. See post, at 11, n.
Is Hobby Lobby Publicly Traded? A Close Look at This Private Retail Giant
Under the Affordable Care Act, companies—except for religious organizations and religious employers—were ordered to provide health benefits, including contraceptive methods, to their employees. As a result, Hobby Lobby, deemed a for-profit company, was not exempt from this order. However, operating as a closely held corporation and not for the interest of the public, Hobby Lobby countered this mandate, arguing that it violated the religious principles of its owners.
Hobby Lobby’s Private Stock Concentrated Within Founder’s Family
12 As earlier explained, see supra, at 10–11, RLUIPA’s amendment of the definition of “exercise of religion” does not bear the weight the Court places on it. Moreover, it is passing strange to attribute to RLUIPA any purpose to cover entities other than “religious assembl[ies] or institution[s].” is hobby lobby publicly traded 42 U. §2000cc(a)(1). That law applies to land-use regulation. To permit commercial enterprises to challenge zoning and other land-use regulations under RLUIPA would “dramatically expand the statute’s reach” and deeply intrude on local prerogatives, contrary to Congress’ intent.
That definitional change, according to the Court, reflects “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.” Ante, at 7. The parties who were the plaintiffs in the District Courts argue that the Government could pay for the methods that are found objectionable. Brief for Respond ents in No. 13–354, p. 58. In discussing this alternative, the Court does not address whether the proper response to a legitimate claim for freedom in the health care arena is for the Government to create an additional program. Ante, at 41–43. The Court properly does not resolve whether one freedom should be protected by creating incentives for additional government constraints.
8 See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. 205, 230 (1972) (“This case, of course, is not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare has been demonstrated or may be properly inferred.”); Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U. 703 (1985) (invalidating state statute requiring employers to accommodate an employee’s Sabbath observance where that statute failed to take into account the burden such an accommodation would impose on the employer or other employees). Notably, in construing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U. §2000cc et seq., the Court has cautioned that “adequate account” must be taken of “the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.
It can march to the beat of its own drum, closing on Sundays and vocally opposing birth control coverage. An IPO would jeopardize that autonomy. As long as it remains private, the future of Hobby Lobby will largely be determined by the Green family‘s stewardship of the company. And by all accounts, they have ambitious plans for growth. But for now, all signs point to Hobby Lobby staying under the Green family‘s tight control.
