Friend-Of-The-Court Briefs Filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in Support of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby in Conestoga Wood Specialties V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Friend-of-the-court briefs filed at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby in Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius and Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Amici Author(s) Summary Democrats for Life of America; Thomas C. Berg; Sandra Hagood America has a strong tradition of accommodating objections to Former Congressman Bart Stupak facilitating abortion. The Plaintiffs have a colorable basis for fearing that the drugs at issue will cause abortions and it is their definition of abortion, not the government’s that is relevant. The Mandate imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion that is not justified by a compelling interest and the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. 88 Bipartisan Members of Robert Kelner, et. al., Covington & Congress has a long bipartisan tradition of protecting religious Congress Burling freedom, of which RFRA is a powerful example. Congress intended RFRA to be a broad protection of religious freedom applicable to a broad range of individuals and entities, including for-profit corporations. Congress chose to subject the Affordable Care Act to the requirements of RFRA and it fails that standard. Senators Orrin Hatch, Daniel Brendan Walsh, Pashman Stein, P.C.; Amici are part of the broad bipartisan coalition of members who Coats, Thad Cochran, Mike Kevin C. Walsh; John D. Adams, came together to enact RFRA in 1993. RFRA is intended to Crapo, Charles Grassley, James Matthew Fitzgerald, McGuire Woods, protect the free exercise of religion from standard interest group Inhofe, John McCain, Mitch LLP politics. The government has ignored RFRA in enacting this McConnell, Rob Portman, Pat mandate. “The government’s relegation of for-profit corporations Roberts, and Richard Shelby; to third-class status in its invented hierarchy of religious Representatives Bob Goodlatte, objectors is flat-out wrong.” Chris Smith, Lamar Smith, and Frank Wolf Senators Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Ted Cruz The brief details the Administration’s repeated unilateral creation Mike Lee, and David Vitter of exemptions from and suspensions of portions of the ACA and argues that this pattern of conduct demonstrates that the HHS Mandate is not a neutral rule of general applicability nor can it be said to serve any compelling interest. This document and related media resources are available at www.adfmedia.org. Revised 2/10/2014 Michigan, Ohio, and 18 other Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Individuals can organize corporations without sacrificing their states Bill Schuette, Michigan Atty General, et free exercise rights and RFRA does not exclude corporations from al. its protections. The federal government can establish no universal religious principle excluding “for profit” corporations from exercising religious exercise or impose such a rule on state corporate law. The mandate substantially burdens religious exercise and the government’s exemptions demonstrate its lack of a compelling interest. State of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt, Attorney General; Patrick Oklahoma law allows corporations like Hobby Lobby here Wyrick, Solicitor General operate for any lawful purpose, including religious purposes. State law also broadly protects the religious freedom of all “persons,” and the law plainly defines “person” to include corporations. The government’s narrow view hinges on the fact of incorporation under state law, yet there simply is no basis in Oklahoma law for concluding that taking advantage of the corporate form strips Oklahoma businesses of the strong religious freedoms afforded to all Oklahoma citizens. To the contrary, Oklahoma has a longstanding tradition of using its laws to protect religious freedom rather than to deprive it. Women Speak for Themselves Prof. Helen Alvare HHS has demonstrated no compelling interest because it cannot show that the mandate will improve women’s health or equal access to health services. Drugs and devices that terminate unborn children in the womb do not advance any interest in children’s health. The government fails to show that the mandate will increase use, as opposed to access to contraceptives or that unintended pregnancies cause health problems for women. Finally, HHS’ argument that women’s fertility and child rearing prevents their advancement in society, if accepted, would actually harm the cause of women’s equality and freedom. 38 Protestant theologians Jay Thompson, Miles Coleman, Brandon The brief demonstrates, from a historical and theological (including Rick Warren, Ravi Smith, Nelson Mullins Riley & perspective, that requiring a Protestant Christian to choose Zacharias, Wayne Grudem, D.A. Scarborough between violating the Government’s regulations or violating his Carson, and others); Coalition of sincerely held religious beliefs substantially burdens his exercise African American Pastors; of religion. According to the Christian doctrine of vocation all Southeastern Baptist Theological work—whether overtly sacred or ostensibly secular—is spiritual This document and related media resources are available at www.adfmedia.org. Revised 2/10/2014 Seminary; Manhattan activity. Christians are called by God to specific occupations and Declaration; InStep International businesses, and must conduct themselves in their vocations in accordance with their Christian beliefs. Because of the holistic nature of the Christian faith, Christian business owners cannot compartmentalize faith and work and somehow check their faith at the workplace door. Further, because Christian doctrine instructs the believer to not only refrain from direct and personal wrongdoing but also to abstain from the enabling, authorizing, or aiding of another in doing what the Christian believes to be sin, Christian business owners face a devastating choice under the mandate. Christian Legal Society; American Douglas Laycock, Kimberlee Colby Congress clearly understood the 1993 Religious Freedom Bible Society; Anglican Church in Restoration Act (RFRA) to provide “universal coverage,” including North America; Association of to for-profit companies and their owners. There was a very Christian Schools International; explicit and detailed discussion for for-profit corporations, and Association of Gospel Rescue both sides agreed that they were covered. The brief also argues Missions; The Church of Jesus that larger religious liberty traditions—including state and federal Christ of Latter-day Saints; The conscience rights laws—are consistent with protecting for-profit Ethics & Religious Liberty corporations. Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; Prison Fellowship Ministries; World Vision Nine international law Prof. Cole Durham, Elizabeth Clark, All businesses reflect the substantive goals and commitments of institutions and 27 comparative Brett Scharffs, BYU their owners and managers, and it is wrong to deprive religiously law and religion scholars (signers grounded convictions of free exercise protections under RFRA come from Argentina, Belgium, merely because they have been given corporate form. Indeed, Chile, Colombia, France, such a limit would run counter to the trend in many jurisdictions Germany, Israel, Italy, Mexico, in the United States and Europe, which are currently expanding Peru, Slovakia, South Africa, their corporate law to make room for “hybrid” social enterprise Spain, United Kingdom, United entities such as benefit corporations, flexible-purpose States, and Uruguay) corporations, and other entities that combine for-profit form with a commitment to some form of social beneficial purpose. These realities are reflected in widely accepted norms at the This document and related media resources are available at www.adfmedia.org. Revised 2/10/2014 international, regional, and national levels. Decisions by foreign and international tribunals reinforce the principle that government should not require collective religious rights to be checked at the gate before entering the for-profit world. As borne out by international experience, corporations holding such convictions need and deserve protections if full religious freedom is to be achieved in society. Christian Booksellers Association; Michael McConnell, Stephen S. The categorical exclusion of for-profit corporations from Tyndale House; Deseret Book; Schwartz, Kirkland & Ellis protection under the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA “has no Feldheim Publishers support in the text, history, and traditional understanding of free exercise of religion, and would substantially reduce the protections long accorded to that vital freedom under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The Court has previously recognized that corporations can invoke the free exercise of religion. There is no basis for excluding for profit corporations from RFRA’s protections. “The American colonies were founded by joint stock companies expressly dedicated to pursuing both profit and religion. And the pursuit of profit and religion has gone hand in hand ever since. This is the nature of the human enterprise: we need to support ourselves materially, but at the same time to obey the moral and religious precepts that we recognize as authoritative.” Center for Constitutional John Eastman, Anthony Caso, Edwin Religion, as understood by the Founders and Supreme Court Jurisprudence; St. Thomas More Meese III jurisprudence is a communal activity that affects how adherents Society of Orange County conduct their lives. The Founders did not envision that the government would be empowered to compel individuals