Comments on the HHS' Flawed Post-Hobby Lobby Rules

12 Pages Posted: 22 Oct 2014 Last revised: 18 Dec 2014

See all articles by Lyman Johnson

Lyman Johnson

Washington and Lee University - School of Law; University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law

David Millon

Washington and Lee University - School of Law

Stephen M. Bainbridge

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

Ronald J. Colombo

Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law

Brett McDonnell

University of Minnesota Law School

Alan J. Meese

William & Mary Law School

Nathan B. Oman

William & Mary Law School

Date Written: October 20, 2014

Abstract

In late August 2014, after suffering a defeat in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision when the Court held that business corporations are "persons" that can "exercise religion," the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") proposed new rules defining "eligible organizations." Purportedly designed to accommodate the Hobby Lobby ruling, the proposed rules do not comport with the reasoning of that important decision and they unjustifiably seek to permit only a small group of business corporations to be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage on religious grounds. This comment letter to the HHS about its proposed rules makes several theoretical and practical points about the Hobby Lobby holding and how the proposed rules fail to reflect the Court’s reasoning. The letter also addresses other approaches to avoid in the rulemaking process and argues for rules that, unlike what the HHS has proposed, align with the Supreme Court’s reasoning while being consonant with generally applicable precepts of state law and principles of federalism.

Keywords: corporate law, corporate governance, law, religion

JEL Classification: K10, K20, K22

Suggested Citation

Johnson, Lyman P. Q. and Millon, David K. and Bainbridge, Stephen Mark and Colombo, Ronald J. and McDonnell, Brett H. and Meese, Alan J. and Oman, Nathan B., Comments on the HHS' Flawed Post-Hobby Lobby Rules (October 20, 2014). UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 14-18, Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-23, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2512860 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2512860

Lyman P. Q. Johnson (Contact Author)

Washington and Lee University - School of Law ( email )

Lexington, VA 24450
United States
540-458-8515 (Phone)
540-458-8488 (Fax)

University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law

MSL 400, 1000 La Salle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN Minnesota 55403-2005
United States

David K. Millon

Washington and Lee University - School of Law ( email )

Lexington, VA 24450
United States
540-458-8993 (Phone)
540-458-8586 (Fax)

Stephen Mark Bainbridge

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )

385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
310-206-1599 (Phone)
310-825-6023 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.professorbainbridge.com

Ronald J. Colombo

Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law ( email )

121 Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.hofstra.edu/Academics/Law/index_Law.cfm

Brett H. McDonnell

University of Minnesota Law School ( email )

229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
612-625-1373 (Phone)

Alan J. Meese

William & Mary Law School ( email )

South Henry Street
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
United States
757-221-1609 (Phone)
757-221-3261 (Fax)

Nathan B. Oman

William & Mary Law School ( email )

South Henry Street
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
United States

HOME PAGE: http://www.nathanoman.com

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
251
Abstract Views
3,763
Rank
220,643
PlumX Metrics