Civil and Human Rights

RADIO (Texas Public Radio): The Source: Religious Rights In For-Profit Businesses

 

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; the hearing also includes Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius

 

The case weighs the rights of business owners over their employees and how far business owners’ expression of religious beliefs can extend. It poses the question further: Can a for-profit, private company exercise religion? 

 

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are owned by devout Christians who do not want to cover contraceptives in their employee health plans since some of them conflict with their beliefs — specifically, intrauterine devices or emergency contraceptives like Plan B.

 

Several other for-profit businesses have filed suit as well on the contraceptive mandate. 

 

The businesses would be fined $1.3 million a day, nearly $475 million, if they lose the case and continue to deny coverage. They could opt to drop all health coverage for employees but argue they shouldn’t be forced to do that since it puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

 

The companies believe they are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

 

The government argues the RFRA doesn’t apply as they it was passed to protect nonprofits. It argues corporations aren’t people and have no constitutional recourse regarding free expression of religion. They argue further that the companies would shift a burden onto their employees that don’t necessarily share their religious beliefs.

 

Guests:

 

  • Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank
  • David H. Gans, director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center

Additional Links:

 

  • Read the amicus brief filed by the Constitutional Accountability Center here
  • Read the amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute here

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 17, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.