{"id":461,"date":"2013-11-04T17:32:37","date_gmt":"2013-11-04T21:32:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=461"},"modified":"2013-11-04T17:32:37","modified_gmt":"2013-11-04T21:32:37","slug":"eden-foods-the-latest-secular-for-profit-corporation-to-seek-religious-protection-under-the-rfra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2013\/11\/04\/eden-foods-the-latest-secular-for-profit-corporation-to-seek-religious-protection-under-the-rfra\/","title":{"rendered":"Eden Foods: The Latest Secular, For-Profit Corporation to Seek Religious Protection Under the RFRA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photo<\/a>
Photo courtesy of rhrealitycheck.org<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

by: Kevin Lorello, 2L Contributor<\/p>\n

The debate continues over whether a secular, for-profit corporation can assert a religious claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (\u201cRFRA\u201d).\u00a0 The RFRA provides that government may not substantially interfere with a person\u2019s exercise of religion, unless it demonstrates a \u201ccompelling governmental interest.\u201d \u00a0This is the \u201cleast restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,\u201d 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 (\u201cACA\u201d).<\/p>\n

The latest challenge came from Eden Foods v. Sebelius<\/i>, 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201c[he\u2019s] a man . . . and it\u2019s really none of [his] business what women do,\u201d and further states that his main problem with the contraceptive mandate is his objection to the federal government telling him what to do.<\/p>\n

However, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit based it decision on different grounds, following the lead of two recently decided cases \u2013 the Sixth Circuit\u2019s September decision in Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius <\/i>and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit\u2019s July opinion in Conestoga Wood Specialties, Corp v. Sebelius <\/i>\u2013 by holding that Eden Foods and Potter, as a secular, for-profit corporation, cannot exercise religion.\u00a0 Therefore, Eden Foods and Potter cannot claim a religious exemption from the ACA\u2019s mandated contraception coverage.<\/p>\n

The aforementioned decisions, however, are contrary to the holding of the divided en banc Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit\u2019s June decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius<\/i>.\u00a0 Hobby Lobby<\/i> 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.\u00a0 All of these cases in which for-profits are challenging the contraceptive mandate based on their owners\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

Sources:<\/b><\/p>\n