{"id":158513,"date":"2014-07-01T12:22:45","date_gmt":"2014-07-01T16:22:45","guid":{"rendered":"\/gazette\/?p=158513"},"modified":"2014-07-01T12:22:45","modified_gmt":"2014-07-01T16:22:45","slug":"denial-of-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Denial of coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tNation & World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t

\n\t\tDenial of coverage\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\tChristina Pazzanese\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t\tIn upending health law\u2019s contraception provision, Supreme Court suggests companies have religious rights\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\t\t

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views.<\/em><\/p>\n

In <\/em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a>, the Green family, owners of a large chain of arts-and-crafts shops across the nation employing more than 13,000 workers, argued that some \u201cmorning after\u201d contraception methods were incongruent with their religious objections to abortion. The court ruled that forcing companies to pay for such coverage, or faces fines of $475 million annually for failing to do so, was a substantial burden and a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Nonprofit religious employers, like schools and charities, are already exempt from such a mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n

Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find less-intrusive ways to ensure that workers received contraceptive coverage without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it outright or through government-imposed fines. Alito wrote in his majority decision, the contraceptive coverage \u201cclearly imposes a substantial burden\u201d on the owner\u2019s beliefs. The decision does not provide shelter for companies seeking to avoid other federal mandates, such as tax laws, or to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds, the court said. <\/em><\/p>\n

In her dissent, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called this \u201ca decision of startling breadth\u201d that recognizes religious freedoms under RFRA that are not found under the First Amendment, and one that opens the door to a host of future challenges. \u201cThe court\u2019s expansive notion of corporate personhood \u2026 invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,\u201d she wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Gazette spoke with <\/em>Mark Tushnet<\/em><\/a>, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at\u00a0<\/em>Harvard Law School<\/em><\/a>, about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the ACA. <\/em><\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>What was your reaction to the decision, and did anything surprise you?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>It wasn\u2019t terribly surprising except for the fact that Justice Alito wrote it when everybody was expecting the chief justice to write it. But the bottom-line outcome: I think most people expected it to be in favor of Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Why is that?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET:<\/strong> The tenor of the oral argument, the political context in which the case arises, the general sympathy that conservatives have for religious-liberty claims and the hostility they have to \u2014 we\u2019ll call them \u201cabortion-related claims.\u201d That\u2019s not technically what\u2019s at issue here, but it\u2019s located in that conceptual space.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does HHS have the power to extend the nonprofit exemption to these for-profit companies? And if not, could the employees of these businesses be left without contraception coverage?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>I believe that it does, but I\u2019m not a specialist in the ACA. Justice Alito says, unrealistically, Congress could pass a statute that would provide funding for this, but that\u2019s not realistic.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does this open the door to future challenges both to the ACA and, more broadly, to the government\u2019s ability to apply the law equally, as Ginsburg warns?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>Phrased in that way, does it open the door? The answer is yes. Will anybody get through the door when it\u2019s opened? My guess is very few people would, but we won\u2019t know until the cases get litigated.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE:<\/strong> Why might it be difficult to get through?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET:<\/strong> Because Justice Alito includes what look like significant qualifications. We\u2019re dealing only with this contraceptive issue. We\u2019re not dealing with blood transfusions or vaccinations. We\u2019re not dealing with claims of discrimination. These are closely held corporations, not public corporations, so there\u2019s enough in there to suggest to lower courts that the Supreme Court is not pushing hard on this. On the other hand, with respect to each of those qualifications \u2014 and Justice Ginsburg points this out \u2014 [Alito] doesn\u2019t say that these would be losing claims. He just says, \u201cWe\u2019re not dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Given the religious-objections basis validated by this decision, does it now offer other companies an easier route to seek exemptions for other health-related coverage, like those who object to mental-health treatment or medication?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>The substantive analysis that Justice Alito goes through is: \u201cIs the government\u2019s interest compelling, and is there some reasonable alternative method to promote that that wouldn\u2019t burden religious beliefs?\u201dWith respect to the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists [for example], the thought would be there\u2019s no other reasonable alternative. That\u2019s how he\u2019d suggest that there\u2019s a distinction.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Ginsburg argues that the decision privileges the religious rights of employers over those of their workers, who may or may not hold those same beliefs, and denies them coverage they may not have access to otherwise. Is that a fair reading on her part?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>Justice Alito says no, it\u2019s not a fair reading, because we\u2019re not denying them access; we\u2019re saying there are other ways to provide them access.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>As it stands now, Hobby Lobby is free not to provide coverage, yet there\u2019s no other mechanism in place to provide it to those workers or those similarly situated.<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>As of 2 p.m. [Monday] afternoon, but who knows what it will be tomorrow? My guess is someone in HHS is working on this already.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>What about the question of religious beliefs of affected employees?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>That question is not presented in this case because HHS does not say it\u2019s acting on behalf of people who feel a religious requirement or motivation to use these four methods of birth control. It\u2019s just not there in the case. It\u2019s hard to imagine how you\u2019d present the case. But in a case where the issue was properly presented, the balance between the employer\u2019s interest and the employee\u2019s interests might be different.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>What is likely to happen next? Will we see an uptick in the number of businesses that take exception to the ACA mandate? Will the federal government step in and pay for those workers who are without coverage as a result of this decision?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>I think that after a relatively short period, HHS will do the thing that it\u2019s done for nonprofits, which is to say, \u201cIf you certify that you have religious objections, your insurer will cover the cost without involving you.\u201d Those are being challenged in the nonprofit context. And so Hobby Lobby, or the equivalent, would challenge this new regulation as well. Justice Alito seems to say the nonprofit compromise is satisfactory under the statue, under RFRA. But again, as Justice Ginsburg points out, he doesn\u2019t actually say that. [But the idea of] this \u201cdevastating blow to women\u201d just seems to me completely overstated. It will take a while to shake out. But in the long run, these techniques will be available to women in one way or another.<\/p>\n

GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does the ruling extend new rights to companies?<\/p>\n

TUSHNET: <\/strong>As Justice Alito says, corporations have a lot of constitutional rights as surrogates for individuals. This was one of the places where there was a coherent argument that they shouldn\u2019t. So in that sense, it is something of an extension. But there aren\u2019t very many other rights that are in the same conceptual space. Yes, it moves the line a little, but the line was already pretty far in the direction of corporate rights anyway.<\/p>\n

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":105622744,"featured_media":158516,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"gz_ga_pageviews":0,"gz_ga_lastupdated":"","document_color_palette":null,"author":"Christina Pazzanese","affiliation":"Harvard Staff Writer","_category_override":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1378],"tags":[2843,3143,8168,9173,10650,15870,17060,20279,20280,22796,25571,34606],"gazette-formats":[],"series":[],"class_list":["post-158513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nation-world","tag-abortion","tag-affordable-care-act","tag-christina-pazzanese","tag-contraception","tag-department-of-health-and-human-services","tag-harvard-law-school","tag-hobby-lobby","tag-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg","tag-justice-samuel-alito","tag-mark-tushnet","tag-news-hub","tag-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDenial of coverage — Harvard Gazette<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Denial of coverage — Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Harvard Gazette\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"605\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"403\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"harvardgazette\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"harvardgazette\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\"},\"headline\":\"Denial of coverage\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\"},\"wordCount\":1279,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Abortion\",\"Affordable Care Act\",\"Christina Pazzanese\",\"Contraception\",\"Department of Health and Human Services\",\"Harvard Law School\",\"Hobby Lobby\",\"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg\",\"Justice Samuel Alito\",\"Mark Tushnet\",\"News Hub\",\"U.S. Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Nation & World\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"copyrightYear\":\"2014\",\"copyrightHolder\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\",\"name\":\"Denial of coverage — Harvard Gazette\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00\",\"description\":\"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\",\"width\":605,\"height\":403},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"description\":\"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The Harvard Gazette\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\",\"width\":164,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"The Harvard Gazette\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Denial of coverage — Harvard Gazette","description":"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.","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:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Denial of coverage — Harvard Gazette","og_description":"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.","og_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","og_site_name":"Harvard Gazette","article_published_time":"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":605,"height":403,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"harvardgazette","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/"},"author":{"name":"harvardgazette","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b"},"headline":"Denial of coverage","datePublished":"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/"},"wordCount":1279,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","keywords":["Abortion","Affordable Care Act","Christina Pazzanese","Contraception","Department of Health and Human Services","Harvard Law School","Hobby Lobby","Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg","Justice Samuel Alito","Mark Tushnet","News Hub","U.S. Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Nation & World"],"inLanguage":"en-US","copyrightYear":"2014","copyrightHolder":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","name":"Denial of coverage — Harvard Gazette","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","datePublished":"2014-07-01T16:22:45+00:00","description":"A question-and-answer session probes the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling that for-profit companies can object to the Affordable Care Act\u2019s contraception mandate on religious grounds.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","width":605,"height":403},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","name":"Harvard Gazette","description":"Official news from Harvard University covering innovation in teaching, learning, and research","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#organization","name":"The Harvard Gazette","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg","width":164,"height":64,"caption":"The Harvard Gazette"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/#\/schema\/person\/78d028cf624923e92682268709ffbc4b","name":"harvardgazette"}]}},"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"Denial of coverage","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/07\/denial-of-coverage\/"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg?w=150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg"},"articleSection":"Nation & World","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"harvardgazette"}],"creator":["harvardgazette"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Harvard Gazette","logo":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg"},"keywords":["abortion","affordable care act","christina pazzanese","contraception","department of health and human services","harvard law school","hobby lobby","justice ruth bader ginsburg","justice samuel alito","mark tushnet","news hub","u.s. supreme court"],"dateCreated":"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z","datePublished":"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z","dateModified":"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z"},"rendered":"<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"wp-parsely-metadata\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"headline\":\"Denial of coverage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/denial-of-coverage\\\/\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/story\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/denial-of-coverage\\\/\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/1993-2-3_605.jpg?w=150\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/1993-2-3_605.jpg\"},\"articleSection\":\"Nation & World\",\"author\":[{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"name\":\"harvardgazette\"}],\"creator\":[\"harvardgazette\"],\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"name\":\"Harvard Gazette\",\"logo\":\"https:\\\/\\\/news.harvard.edu\\\/gazette\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Harvard_Gazette_logo.svg\"},\"keywords\":[\"abortion\",\"affordable care act\",\"christina pazzanese\",\"contraception\",\"department of health and human services\",\"harvard law school\",\"hobby lobby\",\"justice ruth bader ginsburg\",\"justice samuel alito\",\"mark tushnet\",\"news hub\",\"u.s. supreme court\"],\"dateCreated\":\"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-01T16:22:45Z\"}<\/script>","tracker_url":"https:\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/news.harvard.edu\/p.js"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1993-2-3_605.jpg","has_blocks":true,"block_data":{"0":{"blockName":"harvard-gazette\/article-header","attrs":{"blockColorPalette":"","coloredHeading":"","creditText":"","displayDetails":"","displayTitle":"","categoryId":1378,"mediaAlt":"","mediaCaption":"","mediaId":"","mediaSize":"","mediaType":"","mediaUrl":"","poster":"","title":"Denial of coverage","subheading":"In upending health law\u2019s contraception provision, Supreme Court suggests companies have religious rights","className":"is-style-square","backgroundFixed":false,"backgroundTone":"light","centeredImage":false,"coloredBackground":false,"displayOverlay":true,"fadeInText":false,"isAmbient":false,"mediaHeight":0,"mediaLength":"","mediaPosition":"","mediaWidth":0,"posterText":"","titleAbove":false,"useUncroppedImage":false,"lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[],"rendered":"<header\n\tclass=\"wp-block-harvard-gazette-article-header alignfull article-header is-style-square has-light-background has-colored-heading\"\n\tstyle=\" \"\n>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__content\">\n\t\t\t<a\n\t\t\tclass=\"article-header__category\"\n\t\t\thref=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/\"\n\t\t>\n\t\t\tNation & World\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\t<h1 class=\"article-header__title wp-block-heading has-large-text\">\n\t\tDenial of coverage\t<\/h1>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t<div class=\"article-header__meta\">\n\t\t<div class=\"wp-block-post-author\">\n\t\t\t<address class=\"wp-block-post-author__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<p class=\"author wp-block-post-author__name\">\n\t\tChristina Pazzanese\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"wp-block-post-author__byline\">\n\t\t\tHarvard Staff Writer\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/address>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t<time class=\"article-header__date\" datetime=\"2014-07-01\">\n\t\t\tJuly 1, 2014\t\t<\/time>\n\n\t\t<span class=\"article-header__reading-time\">\n\t\t\t7 min read\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<h2 class=\"article-header__subheading wp-block-heading\">\n\t\t\tIn upending health law\u2019s contraception provision, Supreme Court suggests companies have religious rights\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\n<\/header>\n"},"2":{"blockName":"core\/group","attrs":{"templateLock":false,"metadata":{"name":"Article content"},"align":"wide","layout":{"type":"constrained","justifyContent":"center"},"tagName":"div","lock":[],"className":"","style":[],"backgroundColor":"","textColor":"","gradient":"","fontSize":"","fontFamily":"","borderColor":"","ariaLabel":"","anchor":""},"innerBlocks":[{"blockName":"core\/freeform","attrs":{"content":"","lock":[],"metadata":[]},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\t\t<p><em>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/13-354_olp1.pdf\"><em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a><em>, the Green family, owners of a large chain of arts-and-crafts shops across the nation employing more than 13,000 workers, argued that some \u201cmorning after\u201d contraception methods were incongruent with their religious objections to abortion. The court ruled that forcing companies to pay for such coverage, or faces fines of $475 million annually for failing to do so, was a substantial burden and a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Nonprofit religious employers, like schools and charities, are already exempt from such a mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find less-intrusive ways to ensure that workers received contraceptive coverage without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it outright or through government-imposed fines. Alito wrote in his majority decision, the contraceptive coverage \u201cclearly imposes a substantial burden\u201d on the owner\u2019s beliefs. The decision does not provide shelter for companies seeking to avoid other federal mandates, such as tax laws, or to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds, the court said. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In her dissent, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called this \u201ca decision of startling breadth\u201d that recognizes religious freedoms under RFRA that are not found under the First Amendment, and one that opens the door to a host of future challenges. \u201cThe court\u2019s expansive notion of corporate personhood \u2026 invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,\u201d she wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The Gazette spoke with <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10906\/Tushnet\"><em>Mark Tushnet<\/em><\/a><em>, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/index.html\"><em>Harvard Law School<\/em><\/a><em>, about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the ACA. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What was your reaction to the decision, and did anything surprise you?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>It wasn\u2019t terribly surprising except for the fact that Justice Alito wrote it when everybody was expecting the chief justice to write it. But the bottom-line outcome: I think most people expected it to be in favor of Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Why is that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> The tenor of the oral argument, the political context in which the case arises, the general sympathy that conservatives have for religious-liberty claims and the hostility they have to \u2014 we\u2019ll call them \u201cabortion-related claims.\u201d That\u2019s not technically what\u2019s at issue here, but it\u2019s located in that conceptual space.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does HHS have the power to extend the nonprofit exemption to these for-profit companies? And if not, could the employees of these businesses be left without contraception coverage?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I believe that it does, but I\u2019m not a specialist in the ACA. Justice Alito says, unrealistically, Congress could pass a statute that would provide funding for this, but that\u2019s not realistic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does this open the door to future challenges both to the ACA and, more broadly, to the government\u2019s ability to apply the law equally, as Ginsburg warns?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Phrased in that way, does it open the door? The answer is yes. Will anybody get through the door when it\u2019s opened? My guess is very few people would, but we won\u2019t know until the cases get litigated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE:<\/strong> Why might it be difficult to get through?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> Because Justice Alito includes what look like significant qualifications. We\u2019re dealing only with this contraceptive issue. We\u2019re not dealing with blood transfusions or vaccinations. We\u2019re not dealing with claims of discrimination. These are closely held corporations, not public corporations, so there\u2019s enough in there to suggest to lower courts that the Supreme Court is not pushing hard on this. On the other hand, with respect to each of those qualifications \u2014 and Justice Ginsburg points this out \u2014 [Alito] doesn\u2019t say that these would be losing claims. He just says, \u201cWe\u2019re not dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Given the religious-objections basis validated by this decision, does it now offer other companies an easier route to seek exemptions for other health-related coverage, like those who object to mental-health treatment or medication?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>The substantive analysis that Justice Alito goes through is: \u201cIs the government\u2019s interest compelling, and is there some reasonable alternative method to promote that that wouldn\u2019t burden religious beliefs?\u201dWith respect to the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists [for example], the thought would be there\u2019s no other reasonable alternative. That\u2019s how he\u2019d suggest that there\u2019s a distinction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Ginsburg argues that the decision privileges the religious rights of employers over those of their workers, who may or may not hold those same beliefs, and denies them coverage they may not have access to otherwise. Is that a fair reading on her part?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Justice Alito says no, it\u2019s not a fair reading, because we\u2019re not denying them access; we\u2019re saying there are other ways to provide them access.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>As it stands now, Hobby Lobby is free not to provide coverage, yet there\u2019s no other mechanism in place to provide it to those workers or those similarly situated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As of 2 p.m. [Monday] afternoon, but who knows what it will be tomorrow? My guess is someone in HHS is working on this already.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What about the question of religious beliefs of affected employees?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>That question is not presented in this case because HHS does not say it\u2019s acting on behalf of people who feel a religious requirement or motivation to use these four methods of birth control. It\u2019s just not there in the case. It\u2019s hard to imagine how you\u2019d present the case. But in a case where the issue was properly presented, the balance between the employer\u2019s interest and the employee\u2019s interests might be different.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What is likely to happen next? Will we see an uptick in the number of businesses that take exception to the ACA mandate? Will the federal government step in and pay for those workers who are without coverage as a result of this decision?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I think that after a relatively short period, HHS will do the thing that it\u2019s done for nonprofits, which is to say, \u201cIf you certify that you have religious objections, your insurer will cover the cost without involving you.\u201d Those are being challenged in the nonprofit context. And so Hobby Lobby, or the equivalent, would challenge this new regulation as well. Justice Alito seems to say the nonprofit compromise is satisfactory under the statue, under RFRA. But again, as Justice Ginsburg points out, he doesn\u2019t actually say that. [But the idea of] this \u201cdevastating blow to women\u201d just seems to me completely overstated. It will take a while to shake out. But in the long run, these techniques will be available to women in one way or another.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does the ruling extend new rights to companies?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As Justice Alito says, corporations have a lot of constitutional rights as surrogates for individuals. This was one of the places where there was a coherent argument that they shouldn\u2019t. So in that sense, it is something of an extension. But there aren\u2019t very many other rights that are in the same conceptual space. Yes, it moves the line a little, but the line was already pretty far in the direction of corporate rights anyway.<\/p>\n<p><em>This interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/em><\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n\t\t<p><em>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/13-354_olp1.pdf\"><em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a><em>, the Green family, owners of a large chain of arts-and-crafts shops across the nation employing more than 13,000 workers, argued that some \u201cmorning after\u201d contraception methods were incongruent with their religious objections to abortion. The court ruled that forcing companies to pay for such coverage, or faces fines of $475 million annually for failing to do so, was a substantial burden and a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Nonprofit religious employers, like schools and charities, are already exempt from such a mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find less-intrusive ways to ensure that workers received contraceptive coverage without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it outright or through government-imposed fines. Alito wrote in his majority decision, the contraceptive coverage \u201cclearly imposes a substantial burden\u201d on the owner\u2019s beliefs. The decision does not provide shelter for companies seeking to avoid other federal mandates, such as tax laws, or to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds, the court said. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In her dissent, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called this \u201ca decision of startling breadth\u201d that recognizes religious freedoms under RFRA that are not found under the First Amendment, and one that opens the door to a host of future challenges. \u201cThe court\u2019s expansive notion of corporate personhood \u2026 invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,\u201d she wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The Gazette spoke with <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10906\/Tushnet\"><em>Mark Tushnet<\/em><\/a><em>, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/index.html\"><em>Harvard Law School<\/em><\/a><em>, about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the ACA. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What was your reaction to the decision, and did anything surprise you?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>It wasn\u2019t terribly surprising except for the fact that Justice Alito wrote it when everybody was expecting the chief justice to write it. But the bottom-line outcome: I think most people expected it to be in favor of Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Why is that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> The tenor of the oral argument, the political context in which the case arises, the general sympathy that conservatives have for religious-liberty claims and the hostility they have to \u2014 we\u2019ll call them \u201cabortion-related claims.\u201d That\u2019s not technically what\u2019s at issue here, but it\u2019s located in that conceptual space.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does HHS have the power to extend the nonprofit exemption to these for-profit companies? And if not, could the employees of these businesses be left without contraception coverage?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I believe that it does, but I\u2019m not a specialist in the ACA. Justice Alito says, unrealistically, Congress could pass a statute that would provide funding for this, but that\u2019s not realistic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does this open the door to future challenges both to the ACA and, more broadly, to the government\u2019s ability to apply the law equally, as Ginsburg warns?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Phrased in that way, does it open the door? The answer is yes. Will anybody get through the door when it\u2019s opened? My guess is very few people would, but we won\u2019t know until the cases get litigated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE:<\/strong> Why might it be difficult to get through?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> Because Justice Alito includes what look like significant qualifications. We\u2019re dealing only with this contraceptive issue. We\u2019re not dealing with blood transfusions or vaccinations. We\u2019re not dealing with claims of discrimination. These are closely held corporations, not public corporations, so there\u2019s enough in there to suggest to lower courts that the Supreme Court is not pushing hard on this. On the other hand, with respect to each of those qualifications \u2014 and Justice Ginsburg points this out \u2014 [Alito] doesn\u2019t say that these would be losing claims. He just says, \u201cWe\u2019re not dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Given the religious-objections basis validated by this decision, does it now offer other companies an easier route to seek exemptions for other health-related coverage, like those who object to mental-health treatment or medication?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>The substantive analysis that Justice Alito goes through is: \u201cIs the government\u2019s interest compelling, and is there some reasonable alternative method to promote that that wouldn\u2019t burden religious beliefs?\u201dWith respect to the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists [for example], the thought would be there\u2019s no other reasonable alternative. That\u2019s how he\u2019d suggest that there\u2019s a distinction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Ginsburg argues that the decision privileges the religious rights of employers over those of their workers, who may or may not hold those same beliefs, and denies them coverage they may not have access to otherwise. Is that a fair reading on her part?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Justice Alito says no, it\u2019s not a fair reading, because we\u2019re not denying them access; we\u2019re saying there are other ways to provide them access.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>As it stands now, Hobby Lobby is free not to provide coverage, yet there\u2019s no other mechanism in place to provide it to those workers or those similarly situated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As of 2 p.m. [Monday] afternoon, but who knows what it will be tomorrow? My guess is someone in HHS is working on this already.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What about the question of religious beliefs of affected employees?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>That question is not presented in this case because HHS does not say it\u2019s acting on behalf of people who feel a religious requirement or motivation to use these four methods of birth control. It\u2019s just not there in the case. It\u2019s hard to imagine how you\u2019d present the case. But in a case where the issue was properly presented, the balance between the employer\u2019s interest and the employee\u2019s interests might be different.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What is likely to happen next? Will we see an uptick in the number of businesses that take exception to the ACA mandate? Will the federal government step in and pay for those workers who are without coverage as a result of this decision?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I think that after a relatively short period, HHS will do the thing that it\u2019s done for nonprofits, which is to say, \u201cIf you certify that you have religious objections, your insurer will cover the cost without involving you.\u201d Those are being challenged in the nonprofit context. And so Hobby Lobby, or the equivalent, would challenge this new regulation as well. Justice Alito seems to say the nonprofit compromise is satisfactory under the statue, under RFRA. But again, as Justice Ginsburg points out, he doesn\u2019t actually say that. [But the idea of] this \u201cdevastating blow to women\u201d just seems to me completely overstated. It will take a while to shake out. But in the long run, these techniques will be available to women in one way or another.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does the ruling extend new rights to companies?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As Justice Alito says, corporations have a lot of constitutional rights as surrogates for individuals. This was one of the places where there was a coherent argument that they shouldn\u2019t. So in that sense, it is something of an extension. But there aren\u2019t very many other rights that are in the same conceptual space. Yes, it moves the line a little, but the line was already pretty far in the direction of corporate rights anyway.<\/p>\n<p><em>This interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/em><\/p>\n"],"rendered":"\n\t\t<p><em>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/13-354_olp1.pdf\"><em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a><em>, the Green family, owners of a large chain of arts-and-crafts shops across the nation employing more than 13,000 workers, argued that some \u201cmorning after\u201d contraception methods were incongruent with their religious objections to abortion. The court ruled that forcing companies to pay for such coverage, or faces fines of $475 million annually for failing to do so, was a substantial burden and a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Nonprofit religious employers, like schools and charities, are already exempt from such a mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find less-intrusive ways to ensure that workers received contraceptive coverage without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it outright or through government-imposed fines. Alito wrote in his majority decision, the contraceptive coverage \u201cclearly imposes a substantial burden\u201d on the owner\u2019s beliefs. The decision does not provide shelter for companies seeking to avoid other federal mandates, such as tax laws, or to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds, the court said. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In her dissent, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called this \u201ca decision of startling breadth\u201d that recognizes religious freedoms under RFRA that are not found under the First Amendment, and one that opens the door to a host of future challenges. \u201cThe court\u2019s expansive notion of corporate personhood \u2026 invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,\u201d she wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The Gazette spoke with <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10906\/Tushnet\"><em>Mark Tushnet<\/em><\/a><em>, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/index.html\"><em>Harvard Law School<\/em><\/a><em>, about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the ACA. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What was your reaction to the decision, and did anything surprise you?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>It wasn\u2019t terribly surprising except for the fact that Justice Alito wrote it when everybody was expecting the chief justice to write it. But the bottom-line outcome: I think most people expected it to be in favor of Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Why is that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> The tenor of the oral argument, the political context in which the case arises, the general sympathy that conservatives have for religious-liberty claims and the hostility they have to \u2014 we\u2019ll call them \u201cabortion-related claims.\u201d That\u2019s not technically what\u2019s at issue here, but it\u2019s located in that conceptual space.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does HHS have the power to extend the nonprofit exemption to these for-profit companies? And if not, could the employees of these businesses be left without contraception coverage?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I believe that it does, but I\u2019m not a specialist in the ACA. Justice Alito says, unrealistically, Congress could pass a statute that would provide funding for this, but that\u2019s not realistic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does this open the door to future challenges both to the ACA and, more broadly, to the government\u2019s ability to apply the law equally, as Ginsburg warns?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Phrased in that way, does it open the door? The answer is yes. Will anybody get through the door when it\u2019s opened? My guess is very few people would, but we won\u2019t know until the cases get litigated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE:<\/strong> Why might it be difficult to get through?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> Because Justice Alito includes what look like significant qualifications. We\u2019re dealing only with this contraceptive issue. We\u2019re not dealing with blood transfusions or vaccinations. We\u2019re not dealing with claims of discrimination. These are closely held corporations, not public corporations, so there\u2019s enough in there to suggest to lower courts that the Supreme Court is not pushing hard on this. On the other hand, with respect to each of those qualifications \u2014 and Justice Ginsburg points this out \u2014 [Alito] doesn\u2019t say that these would be losing claims. He just says, \u201cWe\u2019re not dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Given the religious-objections basis validated by this decision, does it now offer other companies an easier route to seek exemptions for other health-related coverage, like those who object to mental-health treatment or medication?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>The substantive analysis that Justice Alito goes through is: \u201cIs the government\u2019s interest compelling, and is there some reasonable alternative method to promote that that wouldn\u2019t burden religious beliefs?\u201dWith respect to the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists [for example], the thought would be there\u2019s no other reasonable alternative. That\u2019s how he\u2019d suggest that there\u2019s a distinction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Ginsburg argues that the decision privileges the religious rights of employers over those of their workers, who may or may not hold those same beliefs, and denies them coverage they may not have access to otherwise. Is that a fair reading on her part?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Justice Alito says no, it\u2019s not a fair reading, because we\u2019re not denying them access; we\u2019re saying there are other ways to provide them access.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>As it stands now, Hobby Lobby is free not to provide coverage, yet there\u2019s no other mechanism in place to provide it to those workers or those similarly situated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As of 2 p.m. [Monday] afternoon, but who knows what it will be tomorrow? My guess is someone in HHS is working on this already.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What about the question of religious beliefs of affected employees?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>That question is not presented in this case because HHS does not say it\u2019s acting on behalf of people who feel a religious requirement or motivation to use these four methods of birth control. It\u2019s just not there in the case. It\u2019s hard to imagine how you\u2019d present the case. But in a case where the issue was properly presented, the balance between the employer\u2019s interest and the employee\u2019s interests might be different.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What is likely to happen next? Will we see an uptick in the number of businesses that take exception to the ACA mandate? Will the federal government step in and pay for those workers who are without coverage as a result of this decision?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I think that after a relatively short period, HHS will do the thing that it\u2019s done for nonprofits, which is to say, \u201cIf you certify that you have religious objections, your insurer will cover the cost without involving you.\u201d Those are being challenged in the nonprofit context. And so Hobby Lobby, or the equivalent, would challenge this new regulation as well. Justice Alito seems to say the nonprofit compromise is satisfactory under the statue, under RFRA. But again, as Justice Ginsburg points out, he doesn\u2019t actually say that. [But the idea of] this \u201cdevastating blow to women\u201d just seems to me completely overstated. It will take a while to shake out. But in the long run, these techniques will be available to women in one way or another.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does the ruling extend new rights to companies?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As Justice Alito says, corporations have a lot of constitutional rights as surrogates for individuals. This was one of the places where there was a coherent argument that they shouldn\u2019t. So in that sense, it is something of an extension. But there aren\u2019t very many other rights that are in the same conceptual space. Yes, it moves the line a little, but the line was already pretty far in the direction of corporate rights anyway.<\/p>\n<p><em>This interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/em><\/p>\n"}],"innerHTML":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n","innerContent":["\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide\">\n\n","\n\n<\/div>\n"],"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group alignwide has-global-padding is-content-justification-center is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n\n\t\t<p><em>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held, for-profit corporations have a right to exercise the religious beliefs of their owners and therefore cannot be required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to provide contraception coverage to employees if it conflicts with those views.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In <\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/13-354_olp1.pdf\"><em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a><em>, the Green family, owners of a large chain of arts-and-crafts shops across the nation employing more than 13,000 workers, argued that some \u201cmorning after\u201d contraception methods were incongruent with their religious objections to abortion. The court ruled that forcing companies to pay for such coverage, or faces fines of $475 million annually for failing to do so, was a substantial burden and a violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Nonprofit religious employers, like schools and charities, are already exempt from such a mandate.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find less-intrusive ways to ensure that workers received contraceptive coverage without forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for it outright or through government-imposed fines. Alito wrote in his majority decision, the contraceptive coverage \u201cclearly imposes a substantial burden\u201d on the owner\u2019s beliefs. The decision does not provide shelter for companies seeking to avoid other federal mandates, such as tax laws, or to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds, the court said. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>In her dissent, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called this \u201ca decision of startling breadth\u201d that recognizes religious freedoms under RFRA that are not found under the First Amendment, and one that opens the door to a host of future challenges. \u201cThe court\u2019s expansive notion of corporate personhood \u2026 invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,\u201d she wrote.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>The Gazette spoke with <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/faculty\/directory\/10906\/Tushnet\"><em>Mark Tushnet<\/em><\/a><em>, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/index.html\"><em>Harvard Law School<\/em><\/a><em>, about the decision and what it means for future corporate challenges to the ACA. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What was your reaction to the decision, and did anything surprise you?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>It wasn\u2019t terribly surprising except for the fact that Justice Alito wrote it when everybody was expecting the chief justice to write it. But the bottom-line outcome: I think most people expected it to be in favor of Hobby Lobby.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Why is that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> The tenor of the oral argument, the political context in which the case arises, the general sympathy that conservatives have for religious-liberty claims and the hostility they have to \u2014 we\u2019ll call them \u201cabortion-related claims.\u201d That\u2019s not technically what\u2019s at issue here, but it\u2019s located in that conceptual space.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does HHS have the power to extend the nonprofit exemption to these for-profit companies? And if not, could the employees of these businesses be left without contraception coverage?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I believe that it does, but I\u2019m not a specialist in the ACA. Justice Alito says, unrealistically, Congress could pass a statute that would provide funding for this, but that\u2019s not realistic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does this open the door to future challenges both to the ACA and, more broadly, to the government\u2019s ability to apply the law equally, as Ginsburg warns?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Phrased in that way, does it open the door? The answer is yes. Will anybody get through the door when it\u2019s opened? My guess is very few people would, but we won\u2019t know until the cases get litigated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE:<\/strong> Why might it be difficult to get through?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET:<\/strong> Because Justice Alito includes what look like significant qualifications. We\u2019re dealing only with this contraceptive issue. We\u2019re not dealing with blood transfusions or vaccinations. We\u2019re not dealing with claims of discrimination. These are closely held corporations, not public corporations, so there\u2019s enough in there to suggest to lower courts that the Supreme Court is not pushing hard on this. On the other hand, with respect to each of those qualifications \u2014 and Justice Ginsburg points this out \u2014 [Alito] doesn\u2019t say that these would be losing claims. He just says, \u201cWe\u2019re not dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Given the religious-objections basis validated by this decision, does it now offer other companies an easier route to seek exemptions for other health-related coverage, like those who object to mental-health treatment or medication?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>The substantive analysis that Justice Alito goes through is: \u201cIs the government\u2019s interest compelling, and is there some reasonable alternative method to promote that that wouldn\u2019t burden religious beliefs?\u201dWith respect to the Scientologists and the Christian Scientists [for example], the thought would be there\u2019s no other reasonable alternative. That\u2019s how he\u2019d suggest that there\u2019s a distinction.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Ginsburg argues that the decision privileges the religious rights of employers over those of their workers, who may or may not hold those same beliefs, and denies them coverage they may not have access to otherwise. Is that a fair reading on her part?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>Justice Alito says no, it\u2019s not a fair reading, because we\u2019re not denying them access; we\u2019re saying there are other ways to provide them access.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>As it stands now, Hobby Lobby is free not to provide coverage, yet there\u2019s no other mechanism in place to provide it to those workers or those similarly situated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As of 2 p.m. [Monday] afternoon, but who knows what it will be tomorrow? My guess is someone in HHS is working on this already.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What about the question of religious beliefs of affected employees?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>That question is not presented in this case because HHS does not say it\u2019s acting on behalf of people who feel a religious requirement or motivation to use these four methods of birth control. It\u2019s just not there in the case. It\u2019s hard to imagine how you\u2019d present the case. But in a case where the issue was properly presented, the balance between the employer\u2019s interest and the employee\u2019s interests might be different.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>What is likely to happen next? Will we see an uptick in the number of businesses that take exception to the ACA mandate? Will the federal government step in and pay for those workers who are without coverage as a result of this decision?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>I think that after a relatively short period, HHS will do the thing that it\u2019s done for nonprofits, which is to say, \u201cIf you certify that you have religious objections, your insurer will cover the cost without involving you.\u201d Those are being challenged in the nonprofit context. And so Hobby Lobby, or the equivalent, would challenge this new regulation as well. Justice Alito seems to say the nonprofit compromise is satisfactory under the statue, under RFRA. But again, as Justice Ginsburg points out, he doesn\u2019t actually say that. [But the idea of] this \u201cdevastating blow to women\u201d just seems to me completely overstated. It will take a while to shake out. But in the long run, these techniques will be available to women in one way or another.<\/p>\n<p><strong>GAZETTE: <\/strong>Does the ruling extend new rights to companies?<\/p>\n<p><strong>TUSHNET: <\/strong>As Justice Alito says, corporations have a lot of constitutional rights as surrogates for individuals. This was one of the places where there was a coherent argument that they shouldn\u2019t. So in that sense, it is something of an extension. But there aren\u2019t very many other rights that are in the same conceptual space. Yes, it moves the line a little, but the line was already pretty far in the direction of corporate rights anyway.<\/p>\n<p><em>This interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>\n"}},"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":150068,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2013\/11\/companies-vs-coverage\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":0},"title":"Companies or coverage","author":"harvardgazette","date":"November 26, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges by some for-profit companies that have a religious objection to a mandate under the Affordable Care Act that employers must provide employees with health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage. In a question-and-answer session, Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet examines what\u2019s at\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/marktushnet_pfarnsworth_01_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/marktushnet_pfarnsworth_01_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/marktushnet_pfarnsworth_01_605.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336109,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2021\/12\/book-excerpt-from-justice-on-the-brink\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":1},"title":"The chosen one: Amy Coney Barrett","author":"Lian Parsons","date":"December 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In her new book Linda Greenhouse traces forces that made near certain rise of newest \u2014 and undeniably consequential \u2014 Supreme Court justice.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"President Donald Trump and Amy Coney Barrett.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/AP_Trump-and-Barrett.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/AP_Trump-and-Barrett.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/AP_Trump-and-Barrett.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/AP_Trump-and-Barrett.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":77640,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2011\/03\/a-constitutional-question\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":2},"title":"A constitutional question","author":"harvardgazette","date":"March 25, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"A panel of legal scholars examined whether health care reform is constitutional during a panel at Harvard Law School.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/obama_hc4_605a.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/obama_hc4_605a.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/03\/obama_hc4_605a.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":114717,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2012\/07\/expanding-medicaid-to-low-income-adults\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":3},"title":"Expanding Medicaid to low-income adults","author":"harvardgazette","date":"July 26, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"A new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that expanding Medicaid to low-income adults leads to widespread gains in coverage, increased access to care, and \u2014 most importantly \u2014 improved health and reduced mortality.","rel":"","context":"In "Health"","block_context":{"text":"Health","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/health\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/blood-pressure605.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/blood-pressure605.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/07\/blood-pressure605.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":152584,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2014\/02\/shadowing-the-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":4},"title":"Shadowing the Supreme Court","author":"harvardgazette","date":"February 14, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Every January, a handful of Harvard Law School students head to Washington, D.C., to work on cases bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/021214_supremecourt_002_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/021214_supremecourt_002_605.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/021214_supremecourt_002_605.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":314094,"url":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/story\/2020\/10\/legal-scholar-warns-of-potential-supreme-court-changes\/","url_meta":{"origin":158513,"position":5},"title":"Do justices really set aside personal beliefs? Nope, legal scholar says","author":"gazettebeckycoleman","date":"October 15, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Michael Klarman, an expert in constitutional law and constitutional history at Harvard Law School, discusses President Trump\u2019s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.","rel":"","context":"In "Nation & World"","block_context":{"text":"Nation & World","link":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/section\/nation-world\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Amy Coney Barrett.","src":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Amy_Coney_Barrett_AP_20288517224408_H_2500.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Amy_Coney_Barrett_AP_20288517224408_H_2500.jpg?resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Amy_Coney_Barrett_AP_20288517224408_H_2500.jpg?resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Amy_Coney_Barrett_AP_20288517224408_H_2500.jpg?resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/105622744"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158513\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/158516"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158513"},{"taxonomy":"format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gazette-formats?post=158513"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.harvard.edu\/gazette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=158513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}