Research On Religion » Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School

Matthew Franck on Hobby Lobby & Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

tonygill — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:34 +0000

Join us on our Facebook Fan Page for weekly updates and other tidbits.

Can the federal government require a private employer to provide a service or product to employees that violates the private owner’s freedom of conscience? This is the subject that is up for debate in an upcoming US Supreme Court case pitting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties against the Health and Human Services contraception mandate that is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carld G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, provides us with the background to this case, the historical precedents that may influence how it is decided, and his review of what each side will be arguing in late March.

We begin with a review of how this court case percolated up to the Supreme Court, as well as a brief discussion who the primary plaintiffs — Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties — are and what issues are at stake. This discussion covers a bit of the history of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the HHS mandate that came out in the fall of 2011. The primary issue being contested concerns whether or not a business owner can be required to provide certain types of contraception, most notably abortifascients, that those owners consider to be in direct violation of their religious conscience. Tony asks a variety of questions regarding the nature of the litigants including why they were chosen amongst a number of other potential companies that were also suing, and whether or not the fact that both of these companies are privately held has any impact on their legal standing. Matt fills in all the details and notes how the case might have been different had this been the CEO of a publicly-held and traded corporation bringing suit. He also points out that under consideration is whether or not a corporation — in this case one that is privately held — can have the same rights of conscience that an individual possesses under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

We next consider the historical case law that may (or may not) inform the thinking of the Supreme Court justices. We take a quick tour of religious liberty cases over the past half century beginning with Sherbert v Verner and ending, most recently, with Hossana-Tabor, a case that Matt has discussed in greater detail on this show before (see link below). It is during this discussion that Prof. Franck brings up a judicial concept that Tony was unaware of — exemption-based jurisprudence. This style of jurisprudence allows for laws to be made and then exemptions appealed for based upon some special characteristic of an individual or group. Matt feels that this is not the best legal structure for a country to have, something that he has written about and will be available in a few weeks (see link below).

Following our historical discussion, Matt then lays out what he believes will be the arguments made on both sides of this case. A coin flip determined that he would start with the plaintiff’s side of things and he then brings up the defendant’s rebuttal to each of those points. Many of these arguments were hinted at throughout our earlier discussion, but the last 15 minutes of the interview provide a nice summary of what will probably be heard in oral arguments in late March of 2014 (assuming the snow in DC will melt by then). At the end of the conversation, Prof. Franck lays out what he thinks will be the implications for religious liberty should the government win the case and should Hobby Lobby and Conestoga win. Recorded: February 14, 2014.

Matthew Franck on Hosanna-Tabor and Ministerial Exemptions

tonygill — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:00:42 +0000

Join us at our Facebook Fan Page for updates on what new and interesting shows are in the queue!

Can a elementary school teacher at a private religious school be relieved of her duties because of difficulties with a diagnosed disability? Does such an incident apply under the “ministerial exemption” under the rules put forth by the Equal Employment & Opportunity Commission? These were the issues at stake in the recently decided Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC (decided January 2012). While seemingly a minor case in the eyes of the general public, the surprising decision handed down by the nine SCOTUS justices will likely have a wide-reaching impact on religious liberty issues. Prof. Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion & the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, helps us understand the details and broad scope of this historic decision. We begin by outlining the initial complaint in the case — how Cheryl Perich, a grade school instructor with numerous duties and a person designated as a “called teacher” (an important detail in the case), was not rehired after taking a leave of absence due to issues with narcolepsy. Matt explains how the conflict generated first made its way into a district court in Michigan and then proceeded up the chain of the legal system to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The initial district court decision was to dismiss Mr. Perich’s complaint, but the 6th Circuit judges reversed this ruling arguing that she had been discriminated against. Prof. Franck explains how the legal process generally works and how it related to this case, and he further provides information about the “ministerial exemption” clause to most labor regulations. The “ministerial exemption” becomes the fulcrum point on which this case balanced and, in theory, allows for religious institutions to gain exceptions from certain anti-discrimination labor laws if the matter of discrimination impinges upon religious rights of conscience and the ability of a religious group to carry out its mission. Matt provides several examples of how this exemption would work in practice and notes that a legal test of this exemption has never made its way up to the Supreme Court until Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC. For the most part, the legal system has been fairly liberal in granting these exemptions. We then cover why the 6th Circuit Court reversed the lower court’s decision, with the explanation hinging upon a decision of how much time Ms. Perich spent on ministerial (religious) duties relative to other activities, such as teaching art. It is at this point that Tony reveals he may have eaten paste as a kid. Prof. Franck then takes us through the procedures on how this case moved to the SCOTUS and answers Tony’s question, “How did Hosanna-Tabor pay for the legal fees?” He reveals that a case of this magnitude often draws interested parties along the way, and this test of “ministerial exemption” drew the attention of groups like The Beckett Fund, which played an instrumental role in arguing the case. We then look at arguments on both sides of the case, with Matt positing that the Solicitor General’s lawyers (i.e., the government’s litigation team) may have made a significant error in its legal arguments. We also discuss how the “chattering classes” were making prognostications about this case and whether or not they thought it would be a close decision and in which direction the decision would fall. Surprisingly, we learn, the decision was a unamimous 9-0 victory for Hosanna-Tabor. Prof. Franck finishes the interview with what the implications of this case on the general issue of religious freedom as well as specific cases such as the legal rights of private businesses and volunteer organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. Recorded: April 23, 2013.