Federal Court: For-Profit Companies Have No Religious "Rights"

In a decision sure to be appealed to the highest court in the land, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a for-profit company’s request to be exempted from the birth control requirement contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Similar to the Hobby Lobby case a few weeks back, the for-profit company (Conestoga Wood) claimed that their corporation should be exempt from the law because the companies’ shareholders had religious objections to contraceptive use. 

While this is a preliminary decision, all signs point to an identical conclusion as well. Just look at the three-person panels decision, which said that “a secular, for-profit corporation, Conestoga has no free exercise rights under the First Amendment, and is not a ‘person.’” A concurring opinion by Judge Leonard Garth extended that thought process:

[F]or-profit corporate entities, unlike religious non-profit organizations, do not—and cannot—legally claim a right to exercise or establish a “corporate” religion under the First Amendment or the RFRA. As the District Court noted, “[g]eneral business corporations … do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors.” Unlike religious non-profit corporations or organizations, the religious liberty relevant in the context of for-profit corporations is the liberty of its individuals, not of a profit-seeking corporate entity. 

Conestoga further claims that it should be construed as holding the religious beliefs of its owners. This claim is belied by the fact that, as the District Court correctly noted, “‘[i]ncorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs’ . . . . It would be entirely inconsistent to allow the Hahns to enjoy the benefits of incorporation, while simultaneously piercing the corporate veil for the limited purpose of challenging these regulations.”

This would seem to fall in line with the United States v Lee decision that determined religious liberty does not give a company the ability to “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees." Time will tell if this makes it to the Supreme Court - and if it does, if they will actually accept the case (after their prior nearly identical decisions).