The Purpose Driven Sentence – Rick Warren Exposes the Flaw in Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to the ACA

In an op-ed in Saturday’s Washington Post, Pastor Rick Warren claims that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act violates the religious freedom of the Green family that owns the multibillion-dollar, for-profit corporation called Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  Much has been written about why this is not so (including here by my colleague David Gans), but now Warren’s op-ed itself unwittingly exposes the gaping hole in the Greens’ legal theory.   According to Warren:

“Two years ago, the Greens’ commitment to practicing their religious convictions in their family business required that they object to just a few of the contraceptives the government requires providing to employees under the Affordable Care Act.”

“The government requires providing”?  Requires of whom?  Rather awkward writing by a best-selling author.  A more clearly written sentence explaining what the ACA actually does would say:

“Two years ago, the Greens’ commitment to practicing their religious convictions in their family business required that they object to just a few of the contraceptives the government requires that Hobby Lobby provide to its employees under its group health insurance plan.”

Warren’s carefully crafted sentence slides right over the fact that the ACA imposes no legal obligations on the Greens themselves, only on the corporate entity Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  

This is hardly a distinction without a difference.  Individuals who own corporations are given many privileges that individuals running an unincorporated business simply do not enjoy, such as immunity from personal liability for the debts and obligations of the business, which is why so many business owners choose to incorporate.  

The Greens themselves made that choice and elected to incorporate Hobby Lobby Stores.   Now, however, they would like Hobby Lobby to enjoy the privileges of incorporation but without all of the obligations imposed on other for-profit corporations.  That seems a pretty clear sentence to write.  

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Nebraska v. EPA

In Nebraska v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering the legality of the EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions standards. 
Immigration and Citizenship
January 21, 2025

States, civil rights groups sue to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order

Washington Post
Constitutional scholars said the president’s executive order would upend precedent and is unlikely to pass...
Rule of Law
January 20, 2025

RELEASE: Trump’s Shameful Pardons and Commutations Cannot Change the Facts of January 6th

WASHINGTON, DC – Upon reports that President Donald Trump has issued pardons and commutations for individuals...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes