Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Seventh Circuit Blocks HHS Mandate for Private Business (Disses 10th Circuit "Hobby Lobby" Decision)
NROnline/ The Corner ^ | December 29, 2012 | David French

Posted on 12/30/2012 11:00:34 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o

Late yesterday afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners. My colleagues at the ACLJ represent Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family-owned, full-service construction contractor. The company is located in Highland, Ill., and employs about 90 workers.

The brief opinion is worth a read in its entirety, but two parts stand out. First, the court disagreed with the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision rejecting Hobby Lobby’s request for a similar injunction. In a key paragraph the court stated:

The government also argues that any burden on religious exercise is minimal and attenuated, relying on a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12‐6294 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2012). Hobby Lobby, like this case, involves a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief against the mandate brought by a secular, for‐profit employer. On an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, the Tenth Circuit denied an injunction pending appeal, noting that “the particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity condemned by plaintiff[s’] religion.” Id. at 7 (quoting Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1294 (W.D. Okla. 2012)). With respect, we think this misunderstands the substance of the claim. The religious‐liberty violation at issue here inheres in the coerced coverage of contraception, abortifacients, sterilization, and related services, not—or perhaps more precisely, not only—in the later purchase or use of contraception or related services. This is exactly right. The mandated coverage exists — regardless of the actions or activities of the individual employees — and it is the mandate that violates the religious liberty of the employer.

Second, the court distinguished Justice Sotomayor’s recent decision not to grant Hobby Lobby emergency relief, rightly noting that Justice Sotomayor applied a much different standard:

But the “demanding standard” for issuance of an extraordinary writ by the Supreme Court . . . differs significantly from the standard applicable to a motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal in this court. As Justice Sotomayor noted, the entitlement to relief must be “‘indisputably clear.’”

As we begin the new year, we at the ACLJ are exceedingly thankful that each of our for-profit clients has now obtained an injunction against the mandate. Their most fundamental rights to religious liberty enjoy the protection of federal court, at least for now. There is much work left to be done, and a Supreme Court battle looms in 2013.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aclj; bushtaxcuts; fiscalcliff; obamacare; scotus; sebelius; tyranny; zerocare
Directly rebukes 10th Circuit's [crappy] reasoning in Hobby Lobby decision.
1 posted on 12/30/2012 11:00:43 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Good decision.


2 posted on 12/30/2012 11:02:12 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

This is the same Court which recently found Illinois laws against concealed carry of a firearm un-Constitutional.

And now that there are two diametrically opposed decisions the full SCOTUS will have to deal with this, God help us.


3 posted on 12/30/2012 11:04:54 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
We'll have to see if Roberts succumbs to being bribed by the 0bama regime again.. You know, that FBI folder showing Roberts children to be illegal aliens or perhaps photos from his past which look a bit too pretty?


4 posted on 12/30/2012 11:16:46 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Unfortunately, this battle was fought and lost during the civil rights era, when privately owned businesses lost the right to discriminate based on race. For example, a wedding chapel could not refuse to wed an interracial couple.

As offensive as racial discrimination is, one has to tolerate bad choices and beliefs in a free country. A truly free and moral people will ultimately make the right choices. For example, the racist wedding chapel would have eventually been driven out of business, but we foolishly empowered government to stamp out liberty, i.e. freedom of association, religious liberty, private property rights, etc., to defeat discrimination.

We violated the adage that two wrongs don’t make a right, albeit for a worthy cause. The cure, unfortunately, is turning out worse than the disease, because now the government can pretty much tell us to do whatever it wants.

Think free contraception is bad? Wait until the full force of the federal government comes down in favor of homosexuality. Public dissent, i.e. liberty, will be squashed using the exact same arguments as the civil rights era.


5 posted on 12/30/2012 11:22:49 AM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Justice Roberts has a whole lot of work to do to try and clean up his inexcusable mess. Hopefully he realizes how badly he screwed up, assuming Congress would be able to take care of it for him. He owes this country some heroic decisions in defense of liberty.


6 posted on 12/30/2012 11:40:01 AM PST by Avid Coug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I disagree.

There’s nothing wrong with having laws based on civil rights. The problem is that liberals use the liberal courts to expand the coverage of these laws to make everything under the sun a civil right.


7 posted on 12/30/2012 11:42:40 AM PST by FR_addict
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

see:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2973434/posts?page=3#3


8 posted on 12/30/2012 11:43:13 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Avid Coug; Mrs. Don-o

>> “Justice Roberts has a whole lot of work to do to try and clean up his inexcusable mess.” <<

.
Roberts was threatened by Obama with the immediate loss of his children. Do you think that threat has evaporated?

He will continue to toe the line, because he knows that he has no alternative.


9 posted on 12/30/2012 11:45:14 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict

The problem with some of the civil rights legislation is that government usurped my property rights and right of freedom of association. This was done under the guise of inventing a new right, the “public accommodation”, which cannot be found in the Constitution in Exile.

If I were to engage in certain types of businesses, if I accept any customers, I have to accept all customers. This is fundamentally contrary to liberty, and the gay lobby is happy to rub this in my face when they have the opportunity.


10 posted on 12/30/2012 11:47:59 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTd5SoOPNgxLRVRDAHuW5GeNdlygmkZ_Ih8r7r7WQ8dxPfINQn1FA


11 posted on 12/30/2012 11:48:48 AM PST by guido911 (Islamic terrorists are members http://www.freerepublic.com/foof the "ROP", the "religion of pu*&ies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Roberts was threatened by Obama with the immediate loss of his children.”

Can someone elaborate on this a bit or post links?


12 posted on 12/30/2012 11:49:09 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

There were two NYT articles posted here on this, I think in June.


13 posted on 12/30/2012 12:00:23 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

That is news to me as well. If you can find them I would be extremely grateful.


14 posted on 12/30/2012 12:03:07 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

I would like to see some evidence of this as well...regardless of the reasons Roberts can’t be counted on to take a narrow interpretation of the constitution

I am not optimistic on the eventual outcome of this case once it hits the SCOTUS. Roe V Wade made reproductive rights a staple of the constitution ( despite the fictitious nature of the right to privacy) The “right” to “health care” and by default contraception will trump religious freedom. I will pray every day that I am wrong.


15 posted on 12/30/2012 12:08:15 PM PST by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Unfortunately, I don’t trust the Supreme Court to issue the right decision in this Obamacare case, since they issued the wrong decision in the first one.


16 posted on 12/30/2012 1:07:10 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

‘A truly free and moral people will ultimately make the right choices.’

Are you kidding me??? What world do you live in???? Man is fallen and sinful and left to his (their) own devices will always tend towards evil.

If you think that allowing bigotry and discrimination against another human being shows our freedom you are more than sadly mistaken.


17 posted on 12/30/2012 1:07:30 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
There's everything wrong with laws based on so-called 'civil rights' when those laws eviscerate actual historical rights to liberty, property, freedom of religion, free association, and free speech engraved in the Constitution.
18 posted on 12/30/2012 2:00:28 PM PST by TrueKnightGalahad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Nifster: “If you think that allowing bigotry and discrimination against another human being shows our freedom you are more than sadly mistaken.”

The state, i.e. government, most certainly must not be allowed to discriminate against humans based on factors such as skin color. Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental freedom of a free and moral society. Forcing private citizens to show no discrimination is a Pandora’s box. Like I wrote, the purpose seems noble, but it gives government broad and fearful powers to oppress people. These laws are going to be used (ARE being used) to force people to sacrifice the freedom of association, private property rights, and religious liberty.

Nifster: “Man is fallen and sinful and left to his (their) own devices will always tend towards evil.”

That opinion is diametrically opposed to liberty. The country’s founders believed in the God-given rights of We the People. You seem to think we need some all-powerful, secular sovereign. How else can we restrain the evil impulses of free men except to oppress them? Right?


19 posted on 12/30/2012 2:12:27 PM PST by CitizenUSA (Why celebrate evil? Evil is easy. Good is the goal worth striving for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse

Actually, the right-to-privacy argument underlying Roe can easily be turned around and used against the government in the HHS mandate. If it violates “privacy” for the government to forbid access to contraception, it violates it just as much for the government to compel some third party to provide it under force of law.


20 posted on 12/30/2012 3:11:12 PM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Mrs. Don-o. A temporary reprieve? Stay of execution? A lulling into a false sense of semi-security?


21 posted on 12/30/2012 3:26:11 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

The opinion that man is fallen and sinful is biblical. God grants me free will NOT any government.


22 posted on 12/30/2012 4:23:46 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Actually, the right-to-privacy argument underlying Roe can easily be turned around and used against the government in the HHS mandate.

No, It cannot.
You are making the mistake that the laws must be consistent as much as possible; the court cannot abide such a principle because to do so would dethrone them from their position as [legal] priests, handing down "god's word" [law] from their bench according to their arbitrary decision [opinion, non-legal] on whatever matter.

This is the whole point of 'precedence'; it is not, as they assert, to keep the same questions from arising in the legal arena, but is instead nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children's game "Telephone" with your rights.


The "right to privacy" is a perfect example: the right to privacy actually does exist in some form under the 4th Amendment {your belongings are not to be inspected by officials without cause}, but this explicitly guarenteed privacy is routinely violated every day and on such a scale that it is mind-boggling. The TSA alone would be enough to make a lie of the 4th Amendment, but we have "no knock" raids and property/asset forfeiture and Codes Enforcement, too.

23 posted on 12/30/2012 5:56:00 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson