Civil and Human Rights

SCOTUS: Corporations are people

By Deena Zaru

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that for-profit corporations can be exempt from providing certain contraceptives to their employees if providing coverage for those products conflicts with the corporation’s religious beliefs.

The Court’s opinion affirmed the principle that corporations are people and therefore like people, have constitutionally protected religious liberty.

The 5-4 decision against Obama’s contraceptive mandate not only presents legal obstacles for the mandate but also sets a significant precedent when it comes to the court’s understanding of religious freedom.

“Never before in our nation’s history has the Court ruled that for-profit corporations share in the right to free exercise of religion,” Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel for the progressive Center for Constitutional Accountability’s told State of the Union.

Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the Hobby Lobby in the case against the Department of Health and Human Services, says today’s decision is a “big win for freedom in America.”

“The government said that you couldn’t exercise religion while you earn a living or while starting a business. Today, the Supreme Court squarely rejected that approach,” said Rienzi.

Wydra says that this decision invites “a number of ‘me too’ objections by other companies on religious grounds” that could extend to matters such as “anti-discrimination law to medical procedures such as blood transfusions or vaccinations.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote in her dissent that this decision would hurt those employed by corporations such as Hobby Lobby “who do not share their employer’s faith.” And added, “The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

While Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the opinion of the Court, emphasized that the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 “make it perfectly clear that Congress does not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle