by: Kevin Lorello, 2L Contributor
The debate continues over whether a secular, for-profit corporation can assert a religious claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). The RFRA provides that government may not substantially interfere with a person’s exercise of religion, unless it demonstrates a “compelling governmental interest.” This is the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,” in order to exempt a for-profit business from providing contraceptive coverage to its employees as mandated by a provision of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
The latest challenge came from Eden Foods v. Sebelius, where Eden Foods, an organic food supplier, and its CEO, Michael Potter, claimed that the contraceptive mandate infringed upon their religious beliefs. Interestingly enough, Potter’s claim resembled more of an attack against the government than an effort to protect any sincerely held religious belief by himself or his company, which is acknowledged in a footnote to the Sixth Circuit’s opinion. In this footnote, Potter is quoted as saying (in an article to salon.com) that his lack of interest in birth control is because “[he’s] a man . . . and it’s really none of [his] business what women do,” and further states that his main problem with the contraceptive mandate is his objection to the federal government telling him what to do.
However, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based it decision on different grounds, following the lead of two recently decided cases – the Sixth Circuit’s September decision in Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s July opinion in Conestoga Wood Specialties, Corp v. Sebelius – by holding that Eden Foods and Potter, as a secular, for-profit corporation, cannot exercise religion. Therefore, Eden Foods and Potter cannot claim a religious exemption from the ACA’s mandated contraception coverage.
The aforementioned decisions, however, are contrary to the holding of the divided en banc Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s June decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Hobby Lobby found that corporations have religious rights under RFRA. Accordingly, based on the split among the circuits and over 38 pending cases (according to the American Civil Liberties Union) in District Courts, it is likely that the United States Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve this issue of first impression. All of these cases in which for-profits are challenging the contraceptive mandate based on their owners’ religious beliefs, along with the fact that contraception coverage and birth control rights involve a matter of great public importance, should be substantial reasons for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the very near future.
Sources:
- RFRA: 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-1 (West).
- Irwin Carmen, Eden Foods CEO Bad Week Continues, Salon, www.salon.com (4-13-13)
- Ruthann Robson, Sixth Circuit: Eden Foods Corporation Cannot Assert a Religion Under RFRA, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/ (10-28-13)
- Eden Foods v. Sebelius, (6th Cir. 2013).
- Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, (6th Cir. 2013).
- Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc.. v. Sebelius, (3d Cir. 2013).
- Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, (10th Cir. 2013).
- Challenges to the Federal Contraceptive Coverage, American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/challenges-federal-contraceptive-coverage-rule (11-1-13)
