Supreme Court Establishes RFRA Protections for Closely Held For-Profit Corporations: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Introduction
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. is a landmark 2014 decision by the United States Supreme Court that significantly expanded the scope of religious freedom protections for closely held for-profit corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
The case originated when three closely held for-profit corporations—Hobby Lobby, Mardel, and Conestoga Wood Specialties—sought exemptions from the contraceptive mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) on the grounds that providing certain contraceptives violated their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, held that closely held for-profit corporations qualify as "persons" under RFRA and are entitled to its protections. The Court ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) contraceptive mandate, which required employers to provide insurance coverage for a range of contraceptive methods, violated RFRA as applied to these corporations. The mandate imposed a substantial burden on the exercise of religion without satisfying the government's burden to demonstrate a compelling interest and that the mandate was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
The Court emphasized that recognizing RFRA protections for closely held corporations protects the religious freedoms of the individuals who own and control these businesses. Consequently, the contraceptive mandate was deemed unconstitutional as applied to Hobby Lobby, Mardel, and Conestoga Wood Specialties.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The decision extensively references pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, particularly the Employment Division v. Smith case, where the Supreme Court held that a neutral, generally applicable law could be applied to religious practices without constitutional violation. CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES is also cited, where the Court limited the scope of RFRA as a State law.
Additionally, the Court discusses the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which amended RFRA to include a broader definition of religious exercise, emphasizing that RFRA's protections extend beyond practices central to a religious system.
Legal Reasoning
The Court employed a structured analysis based on RFRA’s three-step framework:
- Applicability: The Court first established that RFRA applies to closely held for-profit corporations by interpreting "person" to include such entities under the Dictionary Act unless context dictates otherwise. Since RFRA and RLUIPA's definitions do not exclude for-profit corporations, they are deemed persons deserving of RFRA protections.
- Substantial Burden: It was determined that the contraceptive mandate imposed a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the corporations' owners by compelling them to provide coverage for contraceptives they morally objected to, under threat of significant financial penalties.
- Compelling Governmental Interest and Least Restrictive Means: Although the Court assumed that providing cost-free contraceptives to women is a compelling government interest, it concluded that HHS failed to prove that the contraceptive mandate was the least restrictive means to achieve this interest, noting that existing accommodations for religious nonprofits could similarly be extended to for-profit corporations without imposing undue burdens.
A key aspect of the reasoning was the expansion of "personhood" under RFRA to include closely held corporations, thereby protecting the religious freedoms of the individuals behind these corporations.
Impact
This judgment set a significant precedent by affirming that RFRA protections extend to closely held for-profit corporations, allowing them to seek religious exemptions from generally applicable laws when those laws substantially burden their exercise of religion. This decision has broad implications for the balance between religious liberty and regulatory compliance in the business sector, potentially paving the way for similar exemptions in other areas where corporate religious beliefs may conflict with federal regulations.
Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes the need for the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that no less restrictive means are available when imposing burdens on religious exercise, thereby reinforcing the stringent standards set by RFRA.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
RFRA is a federal law enacted in 1993 to protect individuals' and entities' rights to exercise their religious beliefs without undue interference from the government. Under RFRA, the government cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that the action is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Substantial Burden
A substantial burden under RFRA refers to any government action that significantly interferes with a person’s ability to practice their religion. In this case, requiring Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to provide contraceptive coverage that conflicted with their religious beliefs was deemed a substantial burden.
Compelling Governmental Interest and Least Restrictive Means
Once a substantial burden is established, the government must show that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the law and that the means it employs to achieve this interest are the least restrictive. This ensures that religious freedoms are only infringed upon when absolutely necessary.
Corporate Personhood
Corporate personhood is a legal concept that grants corporations some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as individuals. In the context of RFRA, this means that closely held for-profit corporations can assert religious rights just as individuals can.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby marks a pivotal expansion of religious freedom protections under RFRA to include closely held for-profit corporations. By recognizing these corporations as "persons" under RFRA, the Court ensured that the religious beliefs of the individuals who control these businesses are safeguarded against substantial governmental burdens.
This ruling underscores the stringent requirements RFRA imposes on the government to justify any substantial burdens on religious exercise, thereby reinforcing the balance between religious liberty and regulatory authority. As a result, businesses with sincerely held religious beliefs can seek exemptions from laws that conflict with those beliefs, provided the government cannot sufficiently justify the burden imposed.
Moving forward, this precedent will significantly influence how religious freedoms are negotiated within the corporate sector, potentially affecting a wide range of business practices and regulatory compliance issues.
Comments