You are here
Hobby Lobby: CAC Attorneys In Supreme Court This Morning React To Argument
March 25, 2014
SUPREME COURT PLAZA, Washington, DC – Minutes following the conclusion of oral argument in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores at the U.S. Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center attorneys, who led the drafting of a "friend of the court" brief in the case on the side of the government, issued the following reaction:
"As Solicitor General Verrilli argued repeatedly," said CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra, "never in our Nation's history has a commercial enterprise been granted an exemption from a neutral law when that exemption would harm the rights of others. The Solicitor General put the rights of Hobby Lobby's employees front and center, while the lawyer for Hobby Lobby tried to sweep them under the rug.
"As made clear from the first question asked by Justice Sotomayor," Wydra continued, "this case is about more than contraception. If Hobby Lobby prevails, businesses could try to avoid paying for medical treatments like vaccines and blood transfusions, and avoid important legal protections for family leave and against sex discrimination. This clearly concerned the Justices, and Hobby Lobby's lawyer, Paul Clement, really had no answer for it."
"The big question at the heart of the case," said CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans, "is whether Hobby Lobby's owners will be entitled to impose their religious beliefs on Hobby Lobby's employees and deny them federal rights critical to women's health. Employees," Gans said, "should not have to check their personal liberty and human dignity at the workplace door."
CAC case page for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-and-conestoga-wood-v-sebelius
Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution's text and history.
Articles & Commentary
January 16, 2015
January 16, 2015
Posts from Text & History
Josh Blackman’s King v. Burwell Amicus Curiae Brief For Cato Parrots a Pattern of Legally Irrelevant Partisan Fabrication
January 27, 2015
Can Plaintiffs Be Denied Their Day in Court Because a Remedy is Costly?: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
January 22, 2015
January 20, 2015