UI law professor debates Liberty Institute litigator on SCOTUS decision
The University of Idaho College of Law held a debate last Thursday regarding the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that allows closely held for-profit corporations the right to be exempt from laws that its owners object to on religious grounds.
Jeff Mateer (right) from the Liberty Institute debates University of Idaho College of Law Professor Sarah Haan about the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision last Thursday.
Jeff Mateer, a religious liberty litigator from the Liberty Institute who supports the Supreme Court’s decision, and Sarah Haan, a professor with the College of Law who disagrees, debated the logistics of the case and its decision.
The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide medical insurance to companies with at least 50 employees. Under such mandate, it requires the coverage of preventative care.
Mateer said the Hobby Lobby case stems from the fact that preventative care includes FDA approved contraceptives. The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Lumber Company did not want their employee insurance plan to cover some forms of contraception, due to religious beliefs.
The Green family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, and the Hahn family of Conestoga Wood, objected to multiple forms of birth control.
Mateer cited the case’s majority opinion and said the case was not a constitutional matter, but violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). President Bill Clinton passed the act as federal law in 1993 to prevent laws from being made that create “substantial burden” on religious freedoms.
“The objection is that they believe they are participating in the taking of innocent human life,” Mateer said.
He said Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood had to testify in court and say that the mandate substantially burdened their religious beliefs. Then, the government would have had to show compelling interest for having the mandate.
Mateer said the Hobby Lobby’s interest in the insurance it provides to its employees shows its dedication to all employees.
“It’s actually a very good corporation who takes care of their employees,” Mateer said, referring to Hobby Lobby. “They wanted to provide insurance for their employees.”
Haan said she agrees that religious liberty is a core American value that is fundamental to our nation.
“Unfortunately I think that the Hobby Lobby decision really serves to undercut religious liberty in some important ways,” Haan said. “I don’t think it’s respectful of religious liberty.”
Haan said the decision gave business owners extra religious liberty rights, while giving employees less. She said it is “religious tyranny” that the government is telling people how to live and what kind of medical treatments they are entitled.
According to Haan, a corporation should not be able to practice religion. She said religion is personal — about individual values — not something employers should be able to impose on their employees.
Haan said the five justices who agreed and signed on to the majority opinion are Catholic males, and the Catholic religion itself prohibits the use of contraceptives.
“I think the court was also wrong to conclude that if a corporation has a religion, or can exercise a religion, the religion it exercises is the religion of its shareholders,” Haan said.
She said she does not think the 1993 Congress could have known for-profit corporations would be allowed to practice religion under RFRA when it passed over 20 years ago.
The final decision by the Supreme Court, as Mateer said, ruled there was substantial burden on the religion of the shareholders, and that the RFRA act does apply to for-profit corporations, therefore siding with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.
Mateer said even though many people across the nation weigh in differently on the Hobby Lobby decision, he thinks it’s healthy to have meaningful dialogue about the case and its implications.
Mary Malone can be reached at [email protected]