« "What Wendy Davis’s Filibuster Means for Christian Communion" | Main | Thoughts on the marriage cases »

June 27, 2013

A little good news...

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals gave Hobby Lobby a partial victory today in its suit claiming that the HHS contraceptive mandate violates Hobby Lobby's rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The court said:

We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA, have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.

Posted by Michael Scaperlanda on June 27, 2013 at 09:00 PM in Scaperlanda, Mike | Permalink

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Partial, technically. But much more than half. 95% one might say, including a thorough denunciation of nearly every Obama administration argument touching the merits of RFRA.

Posted by: Matt Bowman | Jun 28, 2013 12:18:49 AM

Pursuant to the Tenth Circuit's decision, the District Court today found in Hobby Lobby's favor on those two remaining equitable injunctive relief factors, and gave Hobby Lobby a TRO. So that adds up to 100%.

Posted by: Matt Bowman | Jun 28, 2013 7:17:37 PM

Good news for certain employers, bad news for employees, who are hindered in their ability to exercise their religious choices [in the furtherance of "religious liberty"] and health choices generally via (per the dissent) a novel and badly argued application of the law.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 1, 2013 12:28:17 PM

ETA: more detail of my position (see also comments by sean) are found in past threads, so will not say anything more here.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 1, 2013 12:41:13 PM

I have to mostly agree with this NY Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/opinion/the-contraception-battle.html?hp&_r=0

sean s.

Posted by: sean samis | Jul 2, 2013 9:40:12 AM

Sean, a corporation consists of a group of persons who are free to assemble and create a corporation based on a particular agreed upon mission.

Posted by: Nancy | Jul 5, 2013 1:58:59 PM

Nancy,

You and I apparently agree about what a corporation is: the important part being that it is a group; it is not a person.

sean s.

Posted by: sean samis | Jul 5, 2013 2:32:19 PM

another view: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/07/11/why-the-en-banc-tenth-circuits-interpretation-of-the-religious-freedom-restoration-act-in-hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-is-indefensible

Posted by: Joe | Jul 13, 2013 12:44:18 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.