{"id":9436,"date":"2014-07-01T00:01:44","date_gmt":"2014-07-01T04:01:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/?p=9436"},"modified":"2014-06-30T11:52:52","modified_gmt":"2014-06-30T15:52:52","slug":"a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/","title":{"rendered":"“A Decision of Startling Breadth”? Reflections on Hobby Lobby"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

This week\u2019s Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on sensible grounds, namely that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) should protect \u201cclosely held\u201d businesses from acting against the dictates of conscience, especially when the government has not demonstrated that their policy is the \u201cleast restrictive means\u201d to advance some compelling interest.<\/p>\n

The HHS Mandate is so called because the Department of Health and Human Services \u2013 not Congress \u2013 crafted the mandate to require for-profit corporations (as well as religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose challenge to the mandate is still pending) to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage to employees. Hobby Lobby has agreed to provide contraceptive coverage, but not for the few drugs that they regard as abortifacients. The court majority argued that they saw no reason why the government could not cover abortifacients itself, in order to avoid the showdown between compliance with the mandate and sincere religious concerns that brought this case before it.<\/p>\n

The bad news is that this was a narrow decision (5-4) on narrow grounds. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it a decision of \u201cstartling breadth.\u201d This is, frankly, a ridiculous statement, and it accounts for Justice Anthony Kennedy\u2019s concurring opinion, which is largely intended to refute the notion that this decision has transformative implications.<\/p>\n

Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, left open the possibility that the court could have decided differently under other scenarios. He mentioned examples such as companies that would deny coverage of blood transfusions or vaccinations on religious grounds, but noted that (in spite of the parade of horrible possibilities considered by HHS lawyers and the dissenting opinions), no one seems to have actually challenged the HHS Mandate on RFRA grounds except with regard to the abortifacient requirement. Alito also indicated that the court would not be inclined to protect racial discrimination cloaked in the rhetoric of religious conscience.\"\"<\/p>\n

But as Alito noted, the HHS and Obama administration seem to believe that \u201cno insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA\u2014no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers.\u201d Alito and the majority affirmed a narrow scenario in which the deeply-held, long-term religious beliefs of family-run business owners are protected by the RFRA (and by the guarantee of \u201cfree exercise of religion\u201d in the First Amendment). Other cases would have to stand on their own merits, but the key issue precipitated by the HHS Mandate is coverage of abortifacients.<\/p>\n

The fact that four of the justices would not extend even such a modest grant of religious liberty is sobering. It reveals again why perhaps the most important issue in presidential politics is the question of Supreme Court appointments. The Supreme Court has assumed such overwhelming national, unilateral authority on issues such as religious liberty, that the switch of just one justice can reverse the status of a basic freedom in America today. This is not a good system, and one wishes that on this and many other issues we could return to an actual federal system in which states and localities had leeway to craft their own policies according to local sensibilities, instead of those of five unelected justices. But we are where we are.<\/p>\n

For the moment, the Hobby Lobby decision represents a fragile consensus that religious liberty can, in certain limited cases, stand up in the face of national government power.<\/p>\n

[See also Baylor president, Judge Ken Starr, on the significance of RFRA<\/a> for the Hobby Lobby case.]<\/p>\n

You can\u00a0sign up here<\/a>\u00a0for my Thomas S. Kidd author<\/em>\u00a0newsletter.\u00a0Each newsletter will update you\u00a0on what\u2019s happening in the world of American, a religious and political history, and current events. It will contain unique material available only to subscribers, and each will help you keep up with my blog posts, books, and other writings from around the web. [Your e-mail information will never be<\/em>\u00a0shared.] Thanks!<\/em><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week\u2019s Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on sensible grounds, namely that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) should protect \u201cclosely held\u201d businesses from acting against the dictates of conscience, especially when the government has not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1000,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[613,1515,5],"tags":[1554,1742,2850,2800],"class_list":["post-9436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion","category-supreme-court","category-thomas-kidd","tag-hhs-mandate","tag-hobby-lobby","tag-supreme-court","tag-thomas-kidd"],"yoast_head":"\n"A Decision of Startling Breadth"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\""A Decision of Startling Breadth"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Anxious Bench\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-07-01T04:01:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-30T15:52:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/4\/43\/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Thomas Kidd\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Thomas Kidd\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/\",\"name\":\"\\\"A Decision of Startling Breadth\\\"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-07-01T04:01:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-30T15:52:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/e46cd10405460833d1f2159b7a9e6933\"},\"description\":\"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“A Decision of Startling Breadth”? Reflections on Hobby Lobby\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/\",\"name\":\"Anxious Bench\",\"description\":\"The Relevance of Religious History for Today\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/e46cd10405460833d1f2159b7a9e6933\",\"name\":\"Thomas Kidd\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2f7767c99f992a3fe8a2cd5ad874ddf6?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2f7767c99f992a3fe8a2cd5ad874ddf6?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Thomas Kidd\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/#!\/ThomasSKidd\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/author\/thomaskidd\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\"A Decision of Startling Breadth\"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby","description":"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\"A Decision of Startling Breadth\"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby","og_description":"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/","og_site_name":"Anxious Bench","article_published_time":"2014-07-01T04:01:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-30T15:52:52+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/4\/43\/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg"}],"author":"Thomas Kidd","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Thomas Kidd","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/","name":"\"A Decision of Startling Breadth\"? Reflections on Hobby Lobby","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-07-01T04:01:44+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-30T15:52:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/e46cd10405460833d1f2159b7a9e6933"},"description":"This week's Hobby Lobby decision from the Supreme Court brings good news and bad news. The good news is that the majority made the right decision, on","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/2014\/07\/a-decision-of-startling-breadth-reflections-on-hobby-lobby\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“A Decision of Startling Breadth”? Reflections on Hobby Lobby"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/","name":"Anxious Bench","description":"The Relevance of Religious History for Today","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/e46cd10405460833d1f2159b7a9e6933","name":"Thomas Kidd","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2f7767c99f992a3fe8a2cd5ad874ddf6?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2f7767c99f992a3fe8a2cd5ad874ddf6?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Thomas Kidd"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/#!\/ThomasSKidd"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/author\/thomaskidd\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1000"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/anxiousbench\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}