The Supreme Court is returning to the issue that it dealt with in the Hobby Lobby case -- whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) gives an employer the right to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptive services. This is a difficult question because the Affordable Care Act gives employees the right to such coverage. In Hobby Lobby the Court was able to craft an accommodation that protected the rights of both employers and employees. In this case, a group of employers challenges that accommodation; they contend that the accommodation itself violates their rights to religious exercise under RFRA.
Wilson Huhn blogs here on on a variety of topics including constitutional law, health care financing reform, income inequality, Abraham Lincoln, and the Civil War.
Showing posts with label hobby lobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hobby lobby. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Saturday, January 18, 2014
2013-2014 Supreme Court Term: Court's Decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, No. 11-965: Implications for the Birth Control Mandate Cases?
On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in favor of Daimler AG (the maker of Mercedes-Benz), ruling that the federal courts in California lacked personal jurisdiction over Daimler to adjudicate claims for human rights violations arising in Argentina. The ruling of the Court may have implications for the birth control mandate cases pending before the Court in Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The Court's slip opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman is available here.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Corporations Are Persons -- But They Are Not Citizens Nor Do They Have Souls
This year in the birth control mandate cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the religious liberty claims of two for-profit business corporations: Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties. This represents an opportunity for the Court to correct the grave error it made in the Citizens United case where it ruled that business corporations have a constitutional right to expend money on behalf of candidates for political office as if they were citizens. For profit corporations are persons, but they are not citizens who have the right to participate in democratic elections for office, nor do they have souls and the consequent right to exercise religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)