hobby lobby v. sebelius
DESCRIPTION
Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Kyle Duncan Interview. Background Mr. Duncan began career helping individuals and organizations protect their religious freedoms by teaching con law at U Miss. Law. Served as solicitor general and appellate chief of the LA department of Justice - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 2: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Kyle Duncan Interview• Background
– Mr. Duncan began career helping individuals and organizations protect their religious freedoms by teaching con law at U Miss. Law.
– Served as solicitor general and appellate chief of the LA department of Justice
– Met with Becket Fund individuals and joined organization as general counsel
• Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius– Beginning of cases where
businesses built on religion sued under RFA and Free Exercise to get out of mandate
– During course of lawsuit, wanted to make sure that Hobby Lobby was not a case about women’s rights or whether businesses should or should not offer contraceptive coverage.
– Case about whether everyone can practice their religion freely
![Page 3: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Interview Cont.• How did the media play a
role?– Most important thing is to
make sure the media knows your point of view, not necessarily that they agree with it
– Happy with how media represented case as question of religious liberty, not whether gov’t has a role in providing contraceptive coverage
• How did your beliefs play a role?– He believes everyone should
be able to practice religion freely, but beliefs not crucial to this case
![Page 4: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Free Exercise Clause
![Page 5: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Free Exercise Clause“Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The First Amendment is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
![Page 6: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hobby Lobby’s ArgumentHobby Lobby argued that the plaintiffs’ sincerely held
religious beliefs prohibits them from providing coverage or access to coverage for abortion-causing drugs or
devices or related education and counseling.
The mandate violates the religious freedoms of Green and his Family who oppose abortion and abortion-inducing
drugs, including certain contraceptives.
![Page 7: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
RuleRational Basis Scrutiny: If a law is both neutral and
generally applicable, it only has to be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to survive a
constitutional challenge.
Neutral: A law is neutral if its object is something other than the infringement or restriction of religious
practices.
![Page 8: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
NeutralityHobby Lobby: The Mandate exempts some religious
employers from compliance while compelling others to provide coverage for preventive services.
The Court: the Mandate is neutral.To hold that any religious exemption makes a statute not
neutral would be to discourage the enactment of any such exemptions- and thus to restrict, rather than
promote, freedom of religion.
![Page 9: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
General Applicability
Laws burdening religious practice must be of general applicability.
![Page 10: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
General Applicability
Hobby Lobby: the Mandate is not generally applicable because of the numerous exemptions, including those for
grandfathered plans and religious employers.
The Court: the Mandate does not pursue governmental interests only against conduct motivated by religious
belief.
The Law is generally applicable.
![Page 11: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Rational Basis Scrutiny
The Mandate is neutral and of general applicability, so it is subject only to
rational basis scrutiny.
![Page 12: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act[RFRA]
![Page 13: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Hobby Lobby’s Argument
The Preventive Care Mandate and the Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the
Mandate violate the plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993
![Page 14: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Prima Facie Case
(1) a substantial burden imposed by the federal government on a (2) sincere (3) exercise of religion
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.
![Page 15: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Substantial Burden
The critical question was whether the mandate imposed a “substantial” burden on the Greens
for purposes of the RFRA.
![Page 16: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Hobby Lobby’s Argument
Following convictionsv.
Paying enormous fines
![Page 17: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Court’s AnalysisDirect Effect
Court: plaintiffs complain of the particular burden that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by Hobby
Lobby’ plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiff’s religion.
![Page 18: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Injunction Granting Courts• Holdings: Corporations have standing to assert both the free exercise rights
and the RFRA claims of their owners when the religious beliefs of the owners and of the corporations are indistinguishable
• RFRA Findings:– Because the ACA’s contraceptive coverage mandate places direct
substantial pressure on the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ religious exercise have been violated
– the government, while having compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring equal access to health care, has either • 1) failed to show that the ACA contraceptive mandate will further the
government’s interests • or 2) failed to prove that the contraceptive mandate is the least
restrictive means of achieving the government’s interest. • The Government’s health care interests were outweighed by the plaintiffs’,
and public’s, interest in the rights afforded by the RFRA.
![Page 20: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ffb550346895dcefb5d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Aftermath• Following the district court’s decision in Hobby
Lobby, the Plaintiffs appealed and filed a motion for injunction pending resolution of appeal in the Tenth Circuit – Tenth Circuit denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for injunction
• Plaintiffs applied to Supreme Court’s Circuit Justice for an injunction pending appellate review – On December 26 2012, the Circuit Justice for the Tenth
Circuit, Justice Sotomayer, denied the application for an injunction pending appellate review