Iggy’s explanation is spot-on. The Justices will also need to determine who will be writing the opinion, who will be writing the dissent (if any), and research will need to be done on precedents.
Bob Woodward wrote a fascinating book, The Brethren, about the inner workings of the Court. If the topic interests you, it’s a neat read.
Or LLCs, or similar.
Quick question: is Hobby Lobby providing the insurance in house, or using some other insurance company? The former I can understand the idea of a religious exemption. But not the latter. The money paid to the insurance company comes from the employee (as specifically noted on any check receipts), not from the company proper. The latter would be the same thing as preventing them from spending their own money on emergency contraception.
Of course, I am not familiar with the law, but the law is obviously not clear or else there would be no point of a challenge.
No, BigT, that’s not typically true. Many employers do require employees to pay a portion of the costs, but generally also contribute a portion of the costs themselves. This expenditure, along with costs for vacation and other benefits, is known as the fringe cost. In the case of insurance, the company pays, often more than the employee pays, and that cost does not appear on the pay stub.
No predictions, I’m bad at that sorta thing (I thought they were going to rule against the ACA), but I hope they come down hard on the side of employees and vote against Hobby Lobby and all others like them. This corporate personhood thing has gone far enough, no need to give them religion too
But, starting in 2013, it does appear on your W-2. Look at box 12 next to code DD. The amount shown there is the total of both employee and employer contributions.
I hope and pray that the Court rules that, while *people *can have religious convictions that society should bend over backwards to protect – *corporations *don’t have religion.
It seems so easy.
But the cynic in me thinks this outcome is doubtful.
Remember that many, if not most, churches are corporations. I guess the abstract legal entity of a church cannot have religion, but the whole reason for incorporating a church is to promote a religion and a religious agenda. They would have to make a far more narrow ruling than corporations can’t have religion.
Not a problem. Churches already are legally defined, with regards to the tax code, so it should be easy to say “corporations (except churches)”.
Or rule “For-profit corporations” don’t have religious convictions.
Roberts and Kennedy are both possible swing votes to uphold the law. There is a lot of precedent that commerce and tax law can be applied to the religious provided that it is neutral on its face, which it is.
Roberts has already gone way out on a limb from his buddies in support of the ACA, and this would require him to back down on that, and also reverse 80 years of commerce clause jurisprudence. We saw with the ACA that he wanted to be the one in the middle with both sides vying for his vote, so within the Court he has, on the ACA, positioned himself closer to the left with Kennedy.
Kennedy loves to be the swing vote, and I think that his vote might also be up in the air.
Hobby Lobby’s position is, in my opinion (not as a lawyer) full of crap. They aren’t a religion, but a for profit corporation without either a conscience or religion. As a practical matter, a ruling for Hobby Lobby would allow anyone to set up a corporation that has religion to get around any government mandate.
First the court helped out one political side with the Bush win. Then they balanced the scale by finding Obamacare constitutional-but crippled it. Now the court feels the score is even and they can do everything possible to slam Obamacare and Obama. Hobby Lobby will win. 5-4. maybe 6-3 if Roberts can call in a favor or three…
What will be interesting is now that corporations have religion, what will the lobbyists do with that tax dodge? I wonder how many senior execs will go on religious retreats (assuming that saves on taxes)? A whole new accounting specialty!
Non-profits are legally defined. Churches are one kind of a non-profit, typically a 501(c)(3). But so are the Red Cross, The American Cancer Society, and many other charities.
So the court cannot distinguish churches from other non-profits without specifically targeting the churches. And that is not generally permitted. They could treat churches the same as all other similarly organized non-profits (i.e. all 501(c)(3) organizations).
I don’t really see a way for them to do that in the present case, since Hobby Lobby has taken no action to distinguish itself from any other corporation (other than remaining closely held.) I am expecting lots of dicta explaining what corporations wishing to avail themselves of HL’s argument need to do - explain their closely held religious belief in their founding documents, or something. Or organize as an LLC.
According to their brief, Hobby Lobby is an S-corp.
Why couldn’t the Court premise a holding on that?
What about the actual text of the law? You know – the thing that theoretically should be the basis of a court decision?
That is so cute! See Bush v. Gore. Supreme Court justices do not vote on the basis of law, but on the basis of their political leanings. They all do this, but none more so than Antonin Scalia, who has even subscribed to the “Original Intent Theory” of jurisprudence which pretends that the founding fathers were all of one mind and certain about every damn issue, to which end he pulls out of his ass whatever opinion he wants to subscribe to the founding fathers that they never said shit about much the same way that Pat Robertson blathers about Jesus being a capitalist.
Hobby Lobby, according to their original complaint, is self-insured.
Michael’s or Wal-Mart. 
It wouldn’t surprise me if Hobby Lobby comes out on top…this Court has seemed far too eager to give corporations the right to essentially trample all over people. I think their case is bullshit though…it’s a for-profit corporation. How can they have a religion?
The only relevant distinction between an S-corporation and regular corps is the 100 shareholder limitation. That still seems like a rather large number of people whose views could be imputed to the corporation.
Thanks (to Bricker, too). My mom asked me about this stuff and I realized how little I actually know, despite voicing my opinion on it in other threads. :o