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
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 12, 2024

TV (Gray TV): CAC’s Frazelle Joins Gray TV to Discuss Fourth Amendment Case at Supreme Court

Gray TV Washington News Bureau
Civil and Human Rights
April 22, 2024

RELEASE: Justices grapple with line-drawing but resist overturning important precedent in Eighth Amendment homelessness case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in City of...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans