Two Trump-backed immigration bills approved by the House face an uphill battle in the Senate. ICYMI–find out more about the bills and other trending stories with Law Street’s best of the week.

Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants. Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Top 10 Law Schools for Health Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Keep reading to find out which schools ranked in our top ten for health law.

Hobby Lobby: Specializing in Arts, Crafts, and Ancient Artifact Smuggling

Hobby Lobby is a family-owned arts and crafts chain based in Oklahoma. The chain has a decidedly religious flavor–in its mission statement it says it is committed to “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” But now the company is under fire for a seemingly unethical move–smuggling ancient artifacts out of Iraq.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hobby Lobby is a family-owned arts and crafts chain based in Oklahoma. The chain has a decidedly religious flavor–in its mission statement it says it is committed to “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” But now the company is under fire for a seemingly unethical move–smuggling ancient artifacts out of Iraq.

On Wednesday, Hobby Lobby and the Department of Justice reached a resolution that will require Hobby Lobby to pay $3 million and forfeit over 5,000 artifacts that it smuggled out of Iraq. The items include clay bullaes (clay balls with seals on the surface) and cuneiform tablets that were improperly labeled.

Here is a timeline of events that details the criminal activity based on court documents:

• In 2009, Hobby Lobby began collecting historically significant artifacts and documents.
• In July 2010, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green and a consultant met with antiquities dealers to inspect a potential sale of 5,548 distinct artifacts.
• Later that month, Hobby Lobby hired a cultural law expert to review the legal issues relevant to the acquisition.
• In October 2010, the cultural law expert warned Hobby Lobby’s in-house counsel that some of the items that Hobby Lobby was interested in purchasing might have been stolen from Iraq, and could be seized by customs, leading to criminal charges.
• In December 2010, Hobby Lobby purchases the artifacts for $1.6 million.
• Over the next year, the antiquities dealers and Hobby Lobby imported the artifacts under false pretenses. For instance, package labels indicated the goods originated from Israel and Turkey when they actually originated from Iraq.
• In January 2011, five shipments containing artifacts were detained by U.S. customs.

By reaching a settlement, Hobby Lobby accepts full responsibility for its actions in the scandal. In a statement on the matter, Green said:

We should have exercised more oversight and carefully questioned how the acquisitions were handled. Hobby Lobby has cooperated with the government throughout its investigation, and with the announcement of today’s settlement agreement, is pleased the matter has been resolved.

U.S. Customs has not commented on what will happen to the artifacts it seized from Hobby Lobby.

This is not the first time that Hobby Lobby has been on the front page due to a legal issue. In 2014 the store was part of the landmark Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby argued that due to their religious beliefs as a corporation they did not have to provide female employees with free contraception. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, expanding the rights of religious freedom to cover corporations as well.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hobby Lobby: Specializing in Arts, Crafts, and Ancient Artifact Smuggling appeared first on Law Street.

Clay Higgins, Did You Seriously Think This Was a Good Idea?

Somehow, Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins thought filming a video for his re-election campaign inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz was a good idea. Higgins is no stranger to controversy: last month he said that the U.S. should hunt down and kill all Islamic terrorism suspects. In the video clip, he talked about the importance of homeland security and making sure the country is safe from “the evils of the world.”

Negative reactions were swift. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum denounced the video, tweeting that the concentration camp is “not a stage.”

Everyone has the right to personal reflections. However, inside a former gas chamber, there should be mournful silence. It’s not a stage. https://t.co/AN5aA1bYEU

— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) July 4, 2017

Some people questioned whether Higgins was aware of the context–the brutal genocide propagated by the Nazis was not an external threat but an internal one. One Twitter user wrote that Auschwitz should also stand “as a reminder of what demonization of people by the state can lead to.” The U.S.-based Anne Frank Center denounced the video in harsh terms, calling it “a global disgrace.” Yesterday, Higgins apologized and said that his intent was to remind people that evil exists, which most of us are all too aware of already. “I have retracted my video…and my sincere apology for any unintended pain is extended,” he said in a statement.

DISGUSTING. @RepClayHiggins your infomercial at Auschwitz a global disgrace. Apologize. Get sensitivity training or a new job. #NeverAgain pic.twitter.com/ddjf7EhwMc

— Anne Frank Center (@AnneFrankCenter) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday evening, the process of filling the vacant Supreme Court seat began, when President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away last February. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in 25 years and, if confirmed, would restore the 5-to-4 conservative bent of the court, which has been ideologically split since Scalia’s passing.

Gorsuch, a Denver native who practiced law in Washington D.C. and was in the same class as President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, is widely seen as fitting the right-wing mold of Scalia. He has served for nearly a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, and earlier in his career, clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are five cases which provide a window into Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

One of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act is that employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraceptives. In 2013, the owner of an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, challenged that mandate at the 10th Circuit appeals court. David Green argued that the ACA’s mandate infringed upon his religious liberty; providing health insurance that covered contraceptives went against his Christian faith.

Gorsuch, and four of his colleagues, agreed, and Green won the challenge. The Supreme Court later affirmed the 10th Circuit’s ruling. “As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion.

Yellowbear v. Lampert

Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate at a prison in Wyoming, sued the director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections for denying him access to the prison’s sweat lodge. As part of his Native American heritage and religious beliefs Yellowbear, serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter, wished to use the sweat lodge for prayer and meditation. In 2014, Gorsuch and his colleagues at the 10th Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff, and reversed an earlier district court ruling.

Writing in the majority opinion, Gorsuch said: “While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them — at least in the absence of a compelling reason. In this record we can find no reason like that.”

A.M. v. Holmes

In May 2011, a seventh grade student in Albuquerque, New Mexico interrupted a gym class by making fake burping sounds. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The student’s mother brought a case against the school’s principle and the police officer to a district court in New Mexico. The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and last summer, the case wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The justices confirmed the decision of the lower court, and sided with the defendants–the school and police. But Gorsuch disagreed with the majority opinion. “If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’s a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”

American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that memorial crosses that ran along a highway in Utah were unconstitutional as an “endorsement of religion” by the government. Gorsuch and three of his fellow justices disagreed with the majority on the case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch cited a Supreme Court precedent that found roadside memorial crosses “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” He also said the court’s finding that a “reasonable observer” might not be able to read the names on the crosses as they drove past, and thus that they could interpret the crosses as a government endorsement of Christianity is a moot point. “Most Utahans, the record shows, don’t even revere the cross,” he added.

Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl

This case centers around a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which found that if an online retailer does not have a physical presence in a state (like Amazon), it is not required to collect a state sales tax. But an online retailer that does have a physical presence in a state (like Best Buy), is required to collect a sales tax.

Colorado enacted a law in 2010 that forced online retailers, no matter their brick-and-mortar presence in the state, to collect a state sales tax. Direct Marketing Association, a group of businesses, challenged the law in court. Last February, the case ended up in the 10th Circuit appeals court in Denver. The court reversed district court rulings in favor of the DMA, and found that the law does not “discriminate against nor does it unduly burden interstate commerce.” Gorsuch concurred.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: Five Key Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, may now resume its battle against birth control after the Supreme Court revived its religious objections to the government contraceptive coverage requirements. The whole debate boils down to an Obamacare provision that has religious opponents in this case advocating for some separation between church and state.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, has been a topic of contention for some religious organizations unwilling to adhere to its contraception provision. The act mandates employers supply health insurance policies to their female employees that cover contraception and sterilization, but detractors say that violates their religious beliefs.

Christian business Hobby Lobby battled boycotts while defending their moral opposition to the act last summer in the Supreme Court and won. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.‘s landmark decision in favor of Hobby Lobby set a precedent for other religious organizations to seek exemptions from the law due to their religious preferences, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision for the Catholic university in light of that ruling.

According to Reuters, the lower court threw out a February 2014 appeals court ruling denying Notre Dame an injunction against the requirement. The appeals court ruling pre-dated the Supreme Court’s June 2014 Hobby Lobby exemption decision. Despite the landmark decision, courts have continued to hear cases on the issue, but have all decided in favor of the government, finding “the compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, discussed Notre Dame’s objections with the Wall Street Journal. She advocated for women’s rights, saying:

It’s absurd to assert that simply filling out a form stating an objection violates religious freedom. What Notre Dame and others really object to is women getting the contraceptive coverage they need. That’s discrimination, plain and simple.

The Catholic church and some Christian opponents don’t see the issue as discrimination, but rather a violation of their rights to represent their beliefs while operating private businesses. Catholicism has historically been opposed to all forms of birth control except abstinence and natural family planning. So, insurance plans that cover birth control, especially in the form of emergency contraception like the Plan B pill and intrauterine devices, stand contradictory to their beliefs.

However, the church may be loosening its stance some when it comes to sex. Pope Francis, who has been recently hailed as a revolutionary force in the Catholic Church, was just quoted saying “Catholics needn’t feel compelled to breed like rabbits.” Even so, following the church’s voice on sexual matters has become less and less important for modern Catholics.  The New York Times broke down Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs” survey from last May finding:

Catholics were only slightly less open to birth control, with 86 percent of them saying that it was “morally acceptable” in comparison with 90 percent of all respondents. But Catholics were more permissive than all respondents when it came to sex outside marriage (acceptable to 72 percent of Catholics versus 66 percent of Americans overall) and gay and lesbian relationships (70 percent versus 58).

Regardless of the feelings of average Americans, however, Notre Dame has stuck to the lawsuit.

Overall this battle between church and state is a fight over health vs. morals. Providing adequate health care coverage for employees is an employer’s responsibility, and maintaining sexual and reproductive health is essential to all women’s wellbeing. The Supreme Court’s decision and reexamination of Notre Dame’s objections may mean some women will have to decide whether or not they’re willing to forfeit that right to adhere with company culture when choosing to work for a religious organization.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Revives Notre Dame’s Contraception Mandate Objections appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much the best. At 81, she’s cooler than I could ever hope to be. I would very much like to be her friend. Or she can be my mentor/life coach. Either way, you should all aspire to be friends with RGB too, and here are just a few of the reasons why.

She’d Be a Great Drinking Buddy

This article was inspired by the comments Ginsburg made yesterday about why she looked so sleepy at last month’s State of the Union.

RBG is my spirit animal MT @voxdotcom I wasn’t “100% sober” at the State of the Union http://t.co/dpXnb4gwPupic.twitter.com/jTbVqyBolE

— Erin K. Stabile (@erinkstabile) February 13, 2015

She explained that she wasn’t “100 percent” sober, after she had enjoyed a “very fine California wine” brought to dinner by fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy.

That’s right, kids, our Supreme Court Justices–at least two of the cool ones–pre-gamed the State of the Union.

She’d Motivate You to Work Out

I would like to point out again, RBG is 81 years old. That being said, she has been working out with a personal trainer since 1999. She explained her workout routine, saying :

I do a variety of weight-lifting, elliptical glider, stretching exercises, push-ups. And I do the Canadian Air Force exercises almost every day.

Although she had some health concerns in November, I bet she’s still prioritizing her health and hitting the gym. Meanwhile, I am 100 percent sure I could not do anything called “Canadian Air Force exercises,” so I could really use a work out buddy like RBG to kick my ass into gear.

She’d Definitely Be Down for a Galentine’s Day Party

When asked at what point Ginsburg believes there are enough women on the Supreme Court, she had an awesome answer: when there are nine. She went on to explain that there were nine men for many years, so why not try out nine women?

She’s long been a strong feminist who isn’t afraid to put her views out there. She also is aware of the fact that she’s an outlier from a generation where women weren’t necessarily given the same opportunities as men. She at one point remembered:

My mother told me two things constantly. One was to be a lady, and the other was to be independent. The study of law was unusual for women of my generation. For most girls growing up in the ’40s, the most important degree was not your B.A., but your M.R.S

I can’t think of a better role model for young women who want to pursue their dreams.

She Knows When to Put Differences Aside for the Sake of Friendship

RBG can teach us that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they don’t have something they can teach you. She and fellow justice Antonin Scalia are basically polar opposites when it comes to beliefs and views. That being said, they can put that all aside and still have a great time together. For many years they had a tradition of spending New Years Eve together along with their spouses. They’ve traveled together–once even riding an elephant together on a trip to India. Another time in France, she went parasailing, although Scalia sat that one out. Being friends with people who force you to defend your opinions and see things a different way is a good thing–Scalia and Ginsburg are absolutely proof of that.

If you can’t get enough of Scalia and Ginsburg’s friendship, there’s actually a one-act comedic opera dedicated to the two. This is the plot:

What happens when Supreme Court justices go before a Higher Power? In this comic opera, Justices Ginsburg and Scalia must pass through three cosmic trials to secure their freedom. The catch: they may have to agree on the Constitution.

Both Ginsburg and Scalia saw it, and liked it.

She’s Very Sassy and Quotable

RBG is well known for her expertly crafted decisions. In the recent Hobby Lobby case, her dissent was nothing short of withering. She called the decision one of “a startling breadth,” and ended with this pretty awesome last paragraph:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Or how about this quote in her dissent against the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act:

Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

What a BAMF.

So there are a lot of reasons to love RBG, and I didn’t even mention her groundbreaking and brilliant legal career. Either way, she’s definitely a woman who should get a hell of a lot of respect, and if there’s anyone who should be allowed to drink wine and then fall asleep at the State of the Union, it’s her.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Reasons Why We Should All Want to Be BFFs With RBG appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

In January I published a break down of the top cases and judicial issues to watch in 2014. Now that the year is coming to an end, it seems appropriate to give you a progress report and see where those cases all ended up.

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison

The case in January: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

What happened in 2014: Ladar Levison lost his appeal in April when he was hit with contempt of court charges. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was held, didn’t rule against Levison because of the merits of the case, but rather because it believed he had made a procedural misstep from the beginning and its hands were tied.

7. Jodi Arias

The case in January: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or to death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

What happened in 2014: The sentencing phase of Arias’ case is still underway. There’s controversy over some “mystery witness” and Arias demanding that the proceedings be made secret. What Arias’ sentence will be remains just as big of a mystery.

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case in January: McCullen v. Coakley has been waiting for its day in court since 2001. There was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

What happened in 2014: SCOTUS ruled the Massachusetts buffer zones unconstitutional in the sense that they impeded protesters’ Freedom of Speech. If you’d like more information on the case, check out fellow Law Streeter Erika Bethmann’s excellent takedown of the decision: Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment isn’t Free Speech.

5. Silkroad Case

The case in January: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web last Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has was accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody.

What happened in 2014: The case against Ross Ulbrecht has been delayed until January 2015. He pleaded not guilty to various drug trafficking, money laundering, hacking, and criminal enterprise charges. According to his defense counsel, the case has been delayed because:

The court did not provide its reasons for the adjournment, but we asked for it earlier this week based on a couple of factors: the danger that the trial would run into the Christmas holidays, which would affect juror availability and the continuity of the trial; some technical and logistical delays (owing to the limitations inherent in Mr. Ulbricht’s pretrial confinement) in getting Mr Ulbricht access to some discovery; some other scheduling issues.

4. Marriage rights

The case(s) in January: The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

What happened in 2014: The victories just keep coming for gay marriage advocates. One of the biggest was on October 6 when the Supreme Court chose not to hear a whole collection of cases challenging same-sex marriage bans in a bunch of different states. Because it declined to weigh in on the appeals court decisions that had ruled the marriage bans unconstitutional, SCOTUS effectively increased the number of states with gay marriage to 30.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s) in January: There have been a variety of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

What happened in 2014: As with gay marriage, there are a lot of cases still running through the system. Unlike gay marriage, there hasn’t been quite as much progress. There have been some cases argued in front of appeals courts, and some voter ID laws struck down, such as in Wisconsin and Texas. It seems like voter ID laws, as well as other restrictive voting laws will end up being decided on a state-by-state basis for a while.

2. Contraception 

The case(s) in January: There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

What happened in 2014: The Hobby Lobby case was one of the biggest decisions to come out of SCOTUS this year. The Hobby Lobby decision made it so that private employers could refuse to provide certain contraception coverage in their insurance plans. While the justices attempted to make the case very narrow and make sure that they just ruled on the specifics of that case so that the “floodgates” wouldn’t be opened, what ramifications it may have down the road will be interesting to see.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s) in January: A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

What happened in 2014: This is another issue that has in many ways not come to its full judicial potential. Some cases are moving forward though — a federal appeals court in DC just started to hear a case that questioned the constitutionality of the NSA collecting so much data after the passage of the Patriot Act. This will be an issue to keep our eyes on moving into 2015.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014: Where are They Now appeared first on Law Street.

In June, Seattle made the news when the city announced that it would be upping its minimum wage to $15 per hour. In a time when arguments over the minimum wage has led to various strikes, discussions, and political debates, the Seattle move was unprecedented. It was pretty smooth too–the Seattle mayor was able to negotiate between a lot of different parties in order to create such a high minimum wage without much resistance. But now the change has finally hit a road bump–attorney Paul Clement is suing the city of Seattle for the minimum wage hike.

The lawsuit, filed by Clement, is on behalf of an organization called the International Franchise Organization. This move has received support from several major organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and National Restaurant Organization, both of which recently joined the lawsuit.

The problem that these groups have with the new minimum wage law stems from the way in which it distinguishes between national chains, franchises, and small businesses. The current text of the law will require large corporations with chains in Seattle to adopt the $15 minimum wage within the next three years. Small businesses have up to seven years to implement it. Franchisees–small businesses that are affiliated with but not operated by larger chains, must implement it within three years. Examples of franchises include Pizza Hut, Dunkin Donuts, and Subway.

The Mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray claims that franchises have support that small mom-and-pop businesses don’t–namely in the form of advertisements, supplies, and menu creation.

The lawyer filing the suit on behalf of the franchisees, Paul Clement,  has had a lot of success with arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court. He has argued 74 cases in front of the highest court in the land, including two of the most talked-about cases of this year–Clement was involved in both the Hobby Lobby and Aereo cases. Clement was also involved in cases related to the Affordable Care Act, and argued on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

He explained why he felt so strongly about the rights of franchisees to receive more time to implement the minimum wage:

I think that that points to the issue that’s at the heart of this case: corporate separateness. When you walk into a McDonald’s or Days Inn or coffee shop that has a dozen outlets, you’re not walking into corporate headquarters. These franchised companies are organized differently from a company that’s one monolithic company with one set of management and one set of employees.

Clement also claims that this is a direct attack on the franchise model of business–mostly coordinated by unions.

This suit marks an interesting turn in a large nation-wide debate about minimum wages. The argument isn’t being made that the wage hike shouldn’t happen, but rather that it’s being pushed on too quick of a time-table. That’s a good sign for minimum wage increases, and indicates that the organizations currently challenging the law realize that. Although $15 is a lot more than what most places are proposing, the idea of a minimum wage hike in general appears to be widely supported. As of a poll about 10 months ago, roughly 75 percent of American support raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour. Whichever way the Seattle fight goes, hopefully the minimum wage will soon take a big jump.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Minimum Wage Battle Heading to Court appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the uproar about some of the Supreme Court’s latest rulings, there was also recently a lesser-known progressive SCOTUS decision that deserves applause. The court decided to not hear two related challenges–Pickup v. Brown and Welch v. Brown–to California’s ban on LGBT conversion therapy. The Pickup suit was brought by David Pickup, a therapist and spokesperson for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH); the plaintiff in the Welch case was Donald Welch, a San Diego pastor. The two suits were backed by religious and anti-LGBT groups in California, but because of SCOTUS’s dismissal, the ban on conversion therapy will go into effect.

In both Pickup and Welch, the plaintiffs claimed that developing adolescents have the choice between heterosexuality or homosexuality. They not only see LGBT orientation as a choice, but also as one that can be corrected and changed with treatment. These suits attested that the minors this ban applies to can reject their unwanted urges. They argue that counselors can help these children in the same way that fitness trainers and nutritionists help people who struggle with their weight. From this point of view, the plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the “constitutional rights of the counselors or parents.“

But what about the rights of the minors? Why weren’t they the ones being discussed in the appeal? Overall, the cases seemed to bypass the minors, who would actually be receiving this conversion therapy, and discussed mostly the rights of their narrow-minded parents or “counselors.” The appeal did claim that the minors firmly believed their same-sex attractions were wrong, unwanted, and correctable. But that being said, those minors could have also been heavily influenced by their families, conversion therapists, and others. It’s easy to agree that your sexual attractions are wrong when the adults you look up to–parents, societal leaders, and religious authorities–are telling you that you’re wrong.

There are also many scientific flaws in conversion therapy. Dr. Jack Drescher MD, a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychological Association, states, “not only is homosexuality ‘not a choice,’ as most efforts to try and change a person’s sexual orientation fail, but some attempts to change can cause harm or damage to an individual’s well-being.” Studies have found that there are no “methodologically sound” studies to support the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy, thus discounting any scientific proof to support these practices.

Furthermore, science has proven that, besides being completely ineffective at converting someone’s sexuality, these therapy techniques can result in permanent psychological and emotional damage to LGBT youth. Instances of societal prejudice and familial rejection have resulted in LGBT youth being nearly six times as likely to report high levels of depression, and more than eight times as likely to have attempted suicide. The pressure that closeted LGBT kids face from family to reject their feelings can be confusing and traumatic. Openly gay youths, or those that have admitted their urges and sought advice from parents, can be met with furious disgust, and even disowned. These reactions, especially from the people that are supposed to provide unconditional love, can be heartbreaking and life-threatening. Conversion therapy only prolongs and falsely validates these reactions.

This issue is tied to the Hobby Lobby case in a way, because some critics were worried that the precedent set in Hobby Lobby would “open the floodgates” to suits from companies asking for religious exceptions to laws. Fortunately, the judges explicitly stated in their decision that their ruling was unique to the specific contraceptive case. The decisions in Pickup and Welch serve as some indication that that will hold true. The Court’s decision not to hear those cases was handed down just moments before the Hobby Lobby decision, possibly proving that religious challenges are not going to end up a SCOTUS free-for-all. While Hobby Lobby certainly made more headlines, Pickup and Welch are incredibly important as well.

The decision on behalf of the Supreme Court not to hear the religious appeal to the ban on LGBT conversion therapy was not only a victory for gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates, but also set an important legal precedent. In refusing the appeal, the court allowed the official prohibition to finally be enforced in California after being held up by these law suits. This law was the first of its kind, signed back in 2012, and was followed by similar legislation in New Jersey about a year later. In my opinion, no one can use guilt and anxiety to induce change, and call it therapy or counseling. In my book, and fortunately the Supreme Court’s as well, they’re just plain wrong.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [@mjb via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good Call, SCOTUS: Conversion Therapy Banned in California appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Birth control has been a source of political controversy since its first days on the market. In recent times, the debate over reproductive health care has traveled to the highest level of judiciary power in the country.

In the June 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court favored a corporation’s religious freedom over a woman’s right to affordable reproductive health coverage. Although the ruling did not completely strike down coverage set forth in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did set up the possibility for some employers to deny coverage. The IUD, or intrauterine device, is one of the contraceptive methods that no longer has guaranteed coverage. What are the policies surrounding birth control in America, and how truly effective is the IUD?

Pre-Hobby Lobby Policy

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that contraception is a necessary preventive health service for women. The ACA requires coverage without cost-sharing for women for all FDA-approved contraceptives. This benefits all women who want to use an IUD because of the high upfront costs without insurance.  All FDA-approved birth control methods must be covered by the plans, which includes: IUDs, the pill, the patch, the ring, the shot, diaphragms, sterilization procedures, and cervical caps.

Hobby Lobby Ruling

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from government regulations that would require them to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties consolidated their cases to challenge the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is limited to closely held corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While some supporters of the majority’s ruling claim the decision won’t affect many women, that is simply not true. More than 90 percent of all American businesses are made up my closely held firms, and they employ approximately 52 percent of the workforce.

The companies argued that just like places of worship and non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, their religious beliefs should exempt them from covering certain emergency contraceptives. This includes IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. Hobby Lobby objected to the morning-after pills and IUDs as they believed they cause abortions. The reasoning is that these forms of contraceptives prevent conception and fertilized egg implantation in the uterus, which to them is equivalent to aborting a life. Director of Contraceptive Development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Diana L. Blithe, has stated that there is no scientific evidence that these contraceptives work beyond fertilization. Birth control pills will continue to be covered, as they are not in opposition to the employer’s beliefs. The ACA originally allowed for non-profit religious organizations to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives and have outside insurance companies cover the women, and Justice Alito suggested that for-profit corporations adopt this method as well.

While women were denied basic reproductive health care by this ruling, the male-dominated majority ruled that  would continue to be covered. This hypocrisy has been noted by the public and Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg in her blistering dissent.

What is the IUD?

The IUD is a small, polyethylene “T-shaped” device that is inserted by a health care provider into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy. In the United States there are two types of IUDs available: hormonal (Mirena and Skyla), which released progestin, and copper (ParaGard). Mirena is effective for five years and Skyla is effective for three years; both may give the woman lighter periods. ParaGard is effective for 12 years and does not alter periods. The main way both types of IUDs work is by manipulating the way sperm moves so they are unable to join with an egg.

What are the benefits of an IUD?

The IUD and the birth control implant are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available. By not requiring user intervention, the risk of pregnancy is less than one percent. If inserted up to five days after unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can also serve as emergency contraception.

Hormonal methods offer supplementary health benefits in addition to contraceptive use. Similar to a birth control pill, an IUD can treat menstrual pain, menstrual bleeding, and acne.

IUDs help women avoid pregnancy coercion — pressuring one into becoming pregnant — and pregnancy due to a sexual partner’s refusal to use contraception. The device is effective, long lasting, and it’s nearly impossible for a partner to detect one.

Many other forms of birth control are advertised for how effective they are in preventing pregnancy. This is true, if they are used properly. A good example for this is the male condom. It is a common belief that they are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, however the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18 percent of women experience an unintended pregnancy while using this method. The discrepancy in information lies within the mighty if. IUDs are so efficient since they remove human error and are long-lasting. From the same CDC report, it was found that copper IUDs have a significantly lower 0.8 percentage.

What are the disadvantages of an IUD?

IUDs, called the Dalkon Shield, debuted in the United States in the 1950s. However, they were later taken off the market because of complications found in early versions of the device. The previous design led to infections and unwanted pregnancies due to it’s complicated method of correct insertion. It was also not widely known by doctors that it had to be removed when a woman became pregnant in order to avoid infection. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility was linked to the Dalkon Shield.Alexandra Sifferlin of Time reported, “According to various reports, upwards of 15 women who became pregnant with a Dalkon IUD inside them died of infections after they miscarried.”

Some other disadvantages include:

• IUDs do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (the male condom provides the best protection from most diseases).
• If a woman is uninsured, an IUD costs between $500 and $1500, including tests, exams, insertion, removal, and the IUD itself. The upfront costs may be a barrier for many women.

Are women using them now?

American women have the lowest rate of IUD se of any developed country and more than half have never heard of them. Laura MacIsaac, Director of Family Planning at Mount Sinai, stated, “IUD use in most of Western Europe, it’s about 20 percent, some countries 30 percent…in America, it’s about five percent.” While these numbers are low compared to other countries, since 2008 Planned Parenthood reports a 75 percent increase in IUD use among patients. In 2009, 8.5 percent of women using contraceptives relied on long-acting reversible contraception such as the IUD. This is a dramatic increase from 2.4 percent in 2002 and 5.5 percent in 2007.

Women between the ages of 25 and 29 who are married, women with no religious affiliation, and women covered by Medicaid use IUDs most frequently. Teenagers are less likely to use the IUD; only three percent of 3.2 million teenage women who use contraceptives chose this method.

Conclusion

IUDs have moved past their sullied past and become one of the most effective methods of birth control on the market. With their long-lasting effectiveness, lack of personal upkeep, and low pregnancy rate, IUDs are a favorable contraceptive option.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006-2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995

SCOTUS: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Additional

Planned Parenthood: IUD as a Form of Birth Control

Guttmacher: Changes in use of Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods in the U.S., 2007-2009

Guttmacher: IUD Fact Sheet

National Women’s Health Network: Not Your Mother’s IUD: Benefits and Risks of Modern IUDs

Time: Why is the Most Effective Form of Birth Control – the IUD – also the one no one is Using?

The New York Times: Religious Groups Equate Some Contraceptives With Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)

Washington Post: A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth

USA Today: Hobby Lobby Case: What Birth Control is Affected?

Huffington Post: Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The IUD: Beyond the Hobby Lobby Case appeared first on Law Street.

Several LGBT rights groups have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would ban employers from refusing to hire or discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. A coalition of groups that support LGBT rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is leading the charge away from the ENDA. This comes as a surprise, given that ENDA previously had strong support from these same groups. They are pulling support from a bill they have long worked to pass for only one reason–the recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. The problem is that they may be overreacting.

Since the ruling was handed down in the Hobby Lobby case, there have been misinterpretations of the case from both sides of the aisle. The liberal side of the debate has rallied behind Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, saying that the “floodgates” have been opened for religious freedom suits. That argument is the reason why so many LGBT groups have removed their support for the ENDA. They fear that corporations who wish to discriminate will be able to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the same way that Hobby Lobby did. They are scared that the Supreme Court could rule that a religious corporation not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality is a violation of RFRA. I understand this fear, excellently articulated here by our blogger Chris Copeland, but I think that they are simply overreacting to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. The ruling itself was very narrow and will likely never serve as a precedent for sexual discrimination.

How am I so sure of this? Let’s put it this way, these suits will almost definitely not happen as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy remains the swing vote on the Supreme Court. Kennedy did vote with the majority on Hobby Lobby, but it is clear from his concurring opinion that his vote came with some serious strings attached. Kennedy implied that he only voted the way he did because of the narrowness of the case. He believed in this specific instance that the least-restrictive means test was not met, and pointed out that the government already allowed exceptions for non-profit corporations. The court’s ruling made it clear that the decision only applies to a religious exception for the contraceptive mandate, and that all other potential religious exceptions must be evaluated individually. Simply put, Hobby Lobby is not an invitation to use the RFRA to allow sexual discrimination.

If a case arguing that job discrimination should be allowed under the RFRA ever made it to the Supreme Court, there is no way Kennedy would vote to allow it. There are several reasons for this. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case that ruled any law prohibiting sexual acts between members of the same sex in private was unconstitutional. He also authored the opinion in United States v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy has long defended the rights of the LGBT community and I do not think he would change his mind if a corporation sued to use RFRA as a basis for legal sexual discrimination. The government banning sexual discrimination would meet the least-restrictive means test, while the contraceptive mandate did not, a distinction that would surely be important to Kennedy.

It’s sad to see these LGBT groups end their support for the ENDA. It is still a law that could do a lot of good. Any challenge to the ENDA under the guise of religious freedom would almost certainly turn out differently than the Hobby Lobby case, but with support being pulled from the law, it will probably never become an issue.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Rights Groups Pulling Support for ENDA in Light of Hobby Lobby Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

All anyone seems to talk about recently is the Hobby Lobby case and women’s reproductive rights. I think this is grossly unfair. Yes, I agree that women’s health is important; but in all the hustle and bustle, we have forgotten about the other half of the population and their delicate reproductive systems. So, I’m going to bring those deprived, long-ignored men’s issues to the spotlight and finally give them the attention they deserve.

First, some background information that you just might not know:

• A man’s reproductive health is apparently directly linked to his fragile self-esteem. Take, for example, the policeman who sued rapper Meek Mill. Mill allegedly made derogatory comments in the press about the officer, which the cop claimed resulted in his boys in blue losing the heat they were formally packing. This just goes to show that men need a lot of (ego) stroking to remain functional.
• Long ago in France, women could sue for divorce if their husbands had ED. How, you ask, would they be able to prove this? Well, it turns out women didn’t have to prove anything. In a reversal on the old ‘innocent until proven guilty’ credo, it was the man’s job to prove he didn’t have a problem. In the infamous impotence trials, men might request a Trial by Congress allowing them to prove they could perform in the bedroom by, well, performing in the bedroom…in front of the court.
• In India, impotence was legally classified as mental cruelty. I think we can all agree with that. The frustration and shame that this causes is torturous (I assume), and I can understand why a court would say Mother Nature is a cruel mistress for causing it. Oh, wait…it’s mental cruelty caused by the man to his wife? Well, those poor men – it’s just never about them.

Now that you see that men all around the world and throughout time have been mistreated and hurt by their lack of reproductive support, I’m sure you will agree that women have been given way too much attention in the healthcare arena as of late.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

To help change that, I am going to tell you about a couple of lawsuits that resulted when the healthcare industry failed men and their genital health.

The Short Story

The first suit takes place across the border in Canada where a man was rushed to a Montreal hospital with a “fractured appendage.” Details of how the fracture occurred were not given, but what is known is that the injury happened while the man was performing his husbandly duties.

He went to the hospital with great faith that the experienced doctors would be able to help him. The doctors decided that surgery was needed and promptly acted to bring this man out of his misery.

Sadly for him, the procedure had some unintended effects: it left an ugly scar, it stopped him from having intimate relations with his wife, and, maybe worse than anything else, the doctors, like all my hairstylists, trimmed off more than was requested. He allegedly ended up an inch shorter, and unlike my hair, he can’t just wait two weeks for it to grow back. After all this, his unsatisfied wife left, presumably to find a man more able to meet her sizable needs.

The man is now suing the hospital for its alleged negligence and his “indescribable anguish.” The question now becomes, just how is he going to prove his claims? I hope for his sake he has before and after shots.

The Never-Ending Story

This next suit took place in Delaware where a truck driver needed some help getting his motor started: to get back to business, he jump-started his equipment with penile implant surgery.

After the surgery, the man’s ED was gone so you might think to yourself, “Success! Good for that lucky devil!” Unfortunately, the surgery left him with a new concern: he could shift into high gear but couldn’t get back to neutral.

If you have ever seen a Viagra commercial then you know that if your erection lasts more than four hours, you should probably contact a doctor. This trucker must not be a late-night television watcher, though, because he didn’t contact the hospital until a firm eight months had passed.

That’s right: he had an eight-month erection. That’s real stamina.

The doctors claimed they weren’t entirely at fault because the man should have come to them sooner, like maybe when, after the surgery, his “scrotum swelled to volleyball size.” Anyway, another surgery fixed the current problem and a third surgery fixed the initial problem, but it still left the man with bad memories and a lot of medical bills.

The angry driver did what any man who suffered from eight months of hardship would do: he began a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence on the part of the doctors.

I’m sad to say that once again our legal system failed to protect the sexual health and well-being of our male population: it took less than two hours for a jury of his peers to decide that there was no negligence.

I’m all for civil justice, but I think we cannot reach equality until we consider all people. Stand up for men’s rights today!

Courtesy of Tumblr.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Hammerin Man via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Penile Code: The Unappreciated Plight of Men’s Reproductive Health appeared first on Law Street.

RANT WARNING: Be advised, this post may cause bouts of annoyance, defeatism, and pessimism.

Courtesy of Wifflegif

Initially, I planned to write an upbeat post about the recent celebrations of pride happening across the country: the Puerto Rican Day Parade, LGBT Pride, America’s success in the World Cup, and the Fourth of July, to name a few. I thought it would be interesting to extrapolate from these events a larger analysis of celebrating (or not) one’s identity. And then damn Hobby Lobby happened. Womp womp.

Last week, the Supreme Court held in two cases collectively referred to as Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on the basis of religious beliefs. Specifically, the Court found that the ACA’s contraception mandate was not the “least restrictive” way for the government to implement this law and thus it created too substantial a burden on the religious freedoms of the companies at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to a less restrictive workaround in the ACA for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

More broadly, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued in her 35-page, no-I’m-not-retiring-yet-assholes, dissenting opinion, Hobby Lobby stands for the principle “that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

That’s right: corporations are indeed people. Those legal entities (which, by the way, are created for the purpose of separating the individuals involved from the corporate entity so that those individuals may be shielded from legal liability) apparently eat, sleep, breath, love, and pray? They sound more human than Darth Vader Cheney.

And as persons, corporations can also speak freely (i.e., wholly bankroll political campaigns) and freely exercise their religion (i.e., infringe on a woman’s reproductive rights).

Hell, with the direction in which this Court is taking corporate personhood, businesses — like any actual individual person in this country — may be able to discriminate on a wider scale. What happens when a business owner’s religious beliefs clash with, say, Title VII’s ban on discrimination in employment? What happens when a business owner acts on his belief that being gay is a sin? In answering these questions, I keep seeing the Jim Crow days when business owners were free to discriminate on the basis of race; I keep seeing the 1980s when they were openly homophobic and sexist. That idea is indeed what makes this “a decision of startling breadth,” as Justice Ginsberg put it.

Sure, I understand that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles arguments are necessarily illogical. But tell that to African Americans who lived through the aftermath of Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate-but-equal holding. Yes, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Hobby Lobby, did promise that the ruling would not open the door to discrimination (exemptions to our anti-discrimination laws). Call me cynical, call me a blasphemer, but frankly I don’t have a whole lot of faith in this Court’s word — this Court that has been so adept at totally flouting precedent and stare decisis when it suits its political ends. Remember Citizens United? Bush v. Gore anyone?

Courtesy of DPMS via Flickr

In fact, we need look no further than last Thursday. Just days after the Court issued its Hobby Lobby ruling, it granted an unsigned emergency order in a new case involving Wheaton College, finding that the very workaround it had hailed as a less restrictive means by which the government could implement the ACA was also unconstitutional — that it substantially burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. What on Earth?! In the span of less than a week Hobby Lobby has already gone further than Hobby Lobby!

So now I sit here wondering what’s next. I wonder how far down this road the Supreme Court will take us. Debbie Downer over here, I know. But this is seriously like the worst season finale ever.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Down the Hobby Lobby Rabbit Hole: Are Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, this is not a happy Tuesday.

Why? Because the Supreme Court made a really shitty decision yesterday. (And we’re not even talking about the bullshit Aereo ruling from last week. WHY DO YOU TAKE ALL THE GOOD THINGS AWAY?!)

Monday, with a slim 5-4 majority, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, deeming that employers can’t be legally compelled to provide insurance coverage for birth control and emergency contraception that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.

This decision is so wildly fucked up on so many levels. SO. MANY.

For those of you who don’t remember, we covered the Hobby Lobby case here at Law Street earlier this year, but here’s the quick gist: the company, which is owned by a family of devout Christians, is not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act and its rules regarding birth control.

While so far Hobby Lobby’s been covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA for its employees, it’s been holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception and two forms of emergency birth control. Why? They’re spewing some zealously crap-tastic pseudo-science claiming these methods are “abortifacients,” which they unequivocally are not.

Despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s case is built on totally unsubstantiated non-science and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state, SCOTUS decided to rule in their favor.

Now, thanks to this fuckery, if your boss’ religion says you shouldn’t be preventing or planning your pregnancies, sorry ladies! No bodily agency for you. The guy who signs your paycheck each week now controls your uterus.

Oh, and just to be clear, this refusal to cover birth control methods only applies to women. Vasectomies, which serve exactly the same purpose for men, will still be covered. So we’re really not talking about the religious evils of family planning or bodily autonomy. We’re only talking about the evils of women maintaining control over their lives.

But actually.

First of all, let’s talk about who made this decision, shall we? A tiny little group of men.

Literally. That slim majority who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby was 100 percent men. Every female Supreme Court justice sided with the dissent. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (Obligatory shout out to Justice Stephen G. Breyer for being the only dude to side with the feminists on this one. We appreciate you, sir.)

So, let’s all take a moment and sigh gigantic, heaving sighs of exasperation at the fact that the bodies of women all over this nation have just been legislated by five, non-uterus-having men.

This could not be clearer. This ruling is about controlling women. Plain and simple.

And it gets worse. Aside from the fact that a bunch of entitled, sexist, wing-bat man-justices just infringed upon women’s bodily autonomy, they also opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal ambiguity.

As the oh-so-wonderful Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in her ball-busting dissent, exempting employers from providing health insurance coverage for birth control because of their religious beliefs brings up a slew of other possible exemptions.

Will companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses be allowed to withhold coverage for blood transfusions? Can Scientologists deny their employees antidepressants? The pig-derived ingredients used to produce anesthesia, vaccines, and pills coated in gelatin can conflict with the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Will employees of companies held by owners of these religions find themselves without coverage as well?

In truth, maybe. That’s the precedent the court is setting with this Hobby Lobby decision. So, watch out if you work for an orthodox Jewish-owned company and need surgery. You might have to suffer through it sans anesthesia.

Seriously? This shit is ridiculous. The legal absurdity SCOTUS is willing to open itself to in the interest of tightening its leash on American women is completely, batshit crazy.

But wait. There’s more. Now that SCOTUS has decided that companies/people (because corporations are apparently more human than women) can pick and choose which parts of a law they abide by based on their religious convictions, all of the laws have the potential to become piecemeal and sort of meaningless.

Everyone, potentially, can become a law book unto themselves. Don’t like this new bill? No problem! Say it conflicts with your religion, and you can opt right out. This defeats the purpose of law entirely — which is, presumably, to protect the people with a set of rules that are established for the common good.

There is no common good anymore, and there is no protection. Your employer thinks you’re a slut who shouldn’t be sleeping around? Too bad for you, love. He can limit your choices and circumscribe your life, and you get no say in the matter.

And finally, the mess this ruling makes out of the freedom of religion clause is insane. Folks are meant to be free to practice their religion without fear of persecution — not to impose their religion as a tool for persecution on unwilling others.

At this moment, the United States is as politically polarized as it was during the Civil War. Secularist, social-safety-net-supporting liberals and religious, anti-tax conservatives are at war right now. This Hobby Lobby decision is just another case in which the battle field is women’s bodies.

So let’s fight this bullshit war, folks. If you believe that women should have affordable access to birth control, join me and Planned Parenthood by telling SCOTUS just how you feel.

We want control over our own bodies and our own lives. Fuck anyone who gets in our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Just Made a Battlefield Out of Women’s Bodies appeared first on Law Street.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1)   Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2)   Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3)   Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact 

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

Jonathan Tobin, a writer for the Commentary, recently argued that ‘Liberals’ hold a contradictory stance regarding the rights of corporations, which has become evident with the Hobby Lobby and Mozilla cases. (To read more about Hobby Lobby’s attempt to overturn the contraception mandate of Obama care check out this article.)

So what are liberals saying about the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius? They point to historical precedence as the reason why Hobby Lobby’s argument fails. In the past, federal courts have ruled that corporations cannot avoid the law based on religious beliefs, for the simple reason of the bright line problem. Simply, how far can corporations go, in terms of ‘breaking’ the law, to uphold religious beliefs? NPR points out that,

The Justice Department says in its briefs that the government would be unable to function if religious beliefs could be the basis for corporations’ refusing to comply with generally applied laws — be they child labor laws, immunization laws, laws that mandate serving racially mixed groups [etc…]

This is a serious problem with the Hobby Lobby’s argument, because by similar logic and certain unreasonableness, it could entail phenomena like segregated service. (Which is by no coincidence being attempted in certain states with regards to gays.) Thus, liberals want to protect the ‘generally applied laws’, which in this case happens to be health care.

Tobin goes on to argue that by making this argument against Hobby Lobby, liberals clearly contradict themselves when they claim that Mozilla ought to fire Mr. Eich, for the simple reason that he donated $1000 to Proposition 8. (Mr. Eich has since resigned, however it is important to understand that people called for him to be fired). What might a liberal say about this? Someone who promotes intolerant policies should not be leading and representing such a powerful company like Mozilla.

Are these liberal stances in contradiction? Tobin argues yes. He claims that “a corporation ought not enforce its religious beliefs regarding abortion” and “a corporation ought enforce a tolerant belief system” are hypocritical stances. At first glance, it may appear that Tobin has a point. How can liberals contend that corporations should not enforce their religious beliefs, but yet enforce other beliefs, like the fact that Eich’s comments are unacceptable?

The problem with Tobin’s argument is that he is leaving out one critical distinction between the Mozilla and Hobby Lobby cases. Regarding the Hobby Lobby issue, liberals are contending that the company should not be granted legal privilege on the grounds of religion in order to enforce their beliefs. The force of the liberals’ argument here is agreeing with and enforcing the law, and thus, this can be seen as a form of legal pressure against Hobby Lobby. In the case of Mr. Eich at Mozilla, the liberal is simply expressing their opinion that a ‘respectable company’ would refrain from appointing CEO’s who contribute to — in their eyes — hateful and intolerant campaigns such as Proposition 8. The difference here, as compared to the Hobby Lobby case, is that the force of the liberal’s argument is an appeal to moral intuition, and this can be seen as social pressure.

The liberal stance regarding Mozilla and Hobby Lobby is not a hypocritical one as Tobin would have us believe. Once we make the distinction between legal pressure, in the case of Hobby Lobby, and social pressure in the case of Mozilla, it should be clear that the liberal’s position is quite tenable. Further more we should value the liberal’s distinct positions, as they represent the proper workings of a flourishing democracy. I am beginning to notice a frightening trend, that as our society continues to polarize, the parties may begin to try and legislate all of their view-points in order to have the ability to argue them with legal pressure. For instance, South Carolina’s attempt to expand their “Stand Your Ground” laws to fetuses, which in effect, would redefine the personhood status of fetuses. Instead of attempting to prevent something like abortion through social pressure, they will attempt to do so through legal pressure. Anybody who cares about freedom should be concerned about this trend.

[Commentary] [NPR] 

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of: [Flickr/Ken Teegarden]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Conservative Gets Wrong About Liberals appeared first on Law Street.

“Ho Ho! Hey Hey! Birth control is here to stay!” Or is it?

Just when we think that the debate about contraception coverage has been laid to rest, another group of angry women are chanting outside of the supreme court and fighting for their right to be insured for their contraceptives. Although this time is a little different. This fight against contraception coverage was not brought about by a religiously affiliated group or a non profit religious organization, but by two corporations whose owners have certain religious beliefs. Thus, the debate regarding contraception coverage under the affordable care act continues, leading to the convening of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday March 25, 2014.

What is the background regarding this debate?

A provision of the affordable health care act requires many employers to provide a variety of birth control methods to female employees who have comprehensive insurance coverage. This law does not apply to all employers due to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents law from substantially burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion. With this act, it was decided that the responsibility to provide birth control to employees was not extended to religious employers such as churches and religiously affiliated groups.

Who are the challengers?

This case has been brought to the supreme court by two for-profit corporations who argued that their businesses are run under religious principles. This includes the Hobby Lobby, arts and crafts chain that is run by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Supplies, a cabinet making company owned by a Mennonite family.

The argument of the government:

The requirement of corporations to pay for contraceptives for female employees is an insurance that that all women will have equal opportunity and access to services regarding their health care. It is not the right of the employers to decide which form of contraception is best for their female employees, because that is the job of their doctor. It is believed that the corporations providing of birth control will lead to less abortions overall.

The argument of the two corporations:

They are not rejecting all forms of birth control, but instead feel that covering the costs of certain methods such as condoms, birth control pills and diaphragms would be within the boundaries of their religion. Now, there are various methods of birth control, but the main ones that are in contention include emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill because the corporations feel if they comply, they are condoning abortion.

What will the outcome be?

We will have to wait and see. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected in June. It is for the court to decide whether the challengers have the right to object to this birth control coverage of specific types of contraception under the 1993 Religious Restoration Act mentioned above. This would mean that the religious beliefs of the corporations were, “substantially burdened”, which is of course up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Where I stand:

There is a large difference between a for-profit company and a non-profit, religiously affiliated organization. In my opinion, there is difference between who should cover birth control and who has the right to opt out. Corporations are now trying to play the religion card, which is a very slippery slope. Let’s think about this. There are many for-profit businesses out there with owners who most likely have some religious affiliation or another. Simply because a business owner closes their doors on Sunday or considers themselves a Christian should not give them the easy way out for covering the birth control of employees, as is the law under the affordable care act. Once some corporations are granted their “religious liberties”, who is to say that not all corporations with a religiously practicing owner can opt out of paying for birth control. These companies are not religiously affiliated, they are not non-profit and they need to pay to cover their employee’s birth control.

For more information, to see the protesters and to decide for yourself:

[Reuters] [The New York Times]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not Another Contraception Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.