by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law and ACS Faculty Advisor, University of California, Irvine School of Law
United States v. Apel, which I argued in the Supreme Court on December 4, involves the right to protest outside of a closed military base. Vandenberg Air Force Base, located in California, is surrounded by a fenced perimeter and entering requires going through a gate with an armed guard. About two hundred yards from the perimeter the military has painted a green line on the ground. Just outside this green line is Highway 1, Pacific Coast Highway. The military has given an easement to California for Highway 1, which is a fully open road with no signs to even indicate that it is part of the base. On the edge of Highway 1, on the public side of the green line, there is a designated protest zone.
My client, Dennis Apel, has been protesting outside of Vandenberg Air Force Base for the last 17 years. In 2003, right before the Iraq war, he threw blood against the wall, just inside the green line, which says, “Vandenberg Air Force Base.” He was convicted of vandalism and spent a short time in jail. He was issued a bar order keeping him from the base. In 2007, he went into the base in violation of his bar letter and was given a letter permanently barring him from entering Vandenberg.
On several occasions in 2010, he went to protest at Vandenberg. He always stayed on the public side of the green line in the public protest area on Highway 1. Military officials said that he was on base property in violation of the bar letter and ordered him to leave; when he refused he was prosecuted and convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. §1382, which prohibits entering a military base after a person has been barred.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed his conviction holding that §1382 applies only if the United States has exclusive possession of the area. This is in accord with the approach followed for decades, in the Ninth Circuit and courts throughout the country.
The United States government sought certiorari and argued that §1382 applies to all of the area owned by the United States and that national security was jeopardized by the Ninth Circuit’s approach. There were two questions before the Supreme Court: first, does §1382 apply to this public protest zone? Second, if so, does the First Amendment protect a right to engage in peaceful protest?
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review two lower court decisions involving for-profit businesses seeking religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraception mandate.” The mandate requires that employer healthcare plans cover all FDA-approved contraception without “cost-sharing”—that is, without a copayment or other out-of-pocket patient expense beyond the monthly plan premium. Churches and other “houses of worship” are fully exempt from the mandate, and there is a regulatory accommodation for religious nonprofits like religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals, which excuses them from complying with the mandate so long as they certify that compliance violates the tenets of their affiliated religion.
For-profit employers whose religious beliefs condemn the use of some or all of the mandated contraceptives have challenged the mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s religious practices unless it is pursuing an exceptionally important goal that it cannot accomplish in another way. These employers are claiming that RFRA grants them the same kind of exemption as has been granted to churches, synagogues, and other religious congregations, even though they are unambiguously secular enterprises like craft stores, auto parts manufacturers, construction companies, and medical supply businesses. (I examined the weaknesses in these cases in an ACS Issue Brief last fall).
One of the mandate decisions the Court will review, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius(10th Cir. June 27, 2013), decided that a for-profit corporation that operates a nation-wide chain of craft stores is a “person” who “exercises religion” under RFRA and thus is entitled to its protections. The other decision, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Sebelius(3rd Cir. July 26, 2013) went the other way, finding that a for-profit corporation that operates a cabinet-making business is not protected by RFRA, and additionally holding that the mandate does not violate free exercise rights protected by the First Amendment.
The D.C. Circuit’s recent decision addressing the contraception mandate – Gilardi v. United States Department of Health and Human Services – got some things right but many more things wrong. The contraception mandate is the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health care plans, now mandatory for large employers, include all FDA-approved contraception without any cost sharing by employees.
Francis and Philip Gilardi own and manage Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, fresh food processing and delivery companies. The brothers are religiously opposed to contraception and argued that the mandate violates their corporations’ and their own religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Under RFRA, “persons” are entitled to exemptions from federal laws that impose a substantial burden on their religious conscience unless the challenged law passes strict scrutiny. A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit held that the brothers were entitled to an exemption from the mandate under RFRA.
What the Gilardi Court got right. The Gilardi Court held that secular corporations are not “persons” capable of religious exercise and therefore cannot bring a RFRA claim. Because RFRA draws from Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, the D.C. Circuit took the occasion to examine whether corporations had free exercise rights. It rejected such a notion, observing that the Supreme Court has never extended free exercise protection to secular corporations and “has expressed strong doubts about the proposition.” “When it comes to the free exercise of religion . . . the [Supreme] Court has only indicated that people and churches worship.”
TheWashington Post recently published a "Letter to the Editor" from ACS President Caroline Fredrickson, which touched on the pernicious influence of campaign contributions on state courts.
In response to a Post article citing efforts by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to push its agenda through various state courts (perhaps having realized federal courts have already been conquered), Fredrickson cited ACS’s 2013 report, Justice at Risk, which provides an empirical analysis of campaign contributions and their impact state judicial decisions. As Fredrickson noted, the data shows that “the more campaign contributions from business interests that justices receive, the more likely they are to side with business litigants.”
Since its release in June, Justice at Risk has been routinely cited by media outlets across the nation, including: The Atlantic, Mother Jones, The Des Moines Register, The Miami Herald and many others. As former Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson phrased it in the pages of The Missoulian, Justice at Risk is an “objective, non-partisan report . . . [that] provides critical data on the effect of campaign expenditures on judicial behavior from 2010-2012.”
Yet another appeals court has issued an opinion about a for-profit corporation’s challenge to the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The mandate requires employee health care plans to contain preventive care coverage that includes FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures. This time, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Gilardi v. HHS that the Gilardis, two Catholic brothers who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics and oppose contraception, sterilization and abortion, are entitled to a preliminary injunction because they are likely to succeed on their claim that the mandate violates their free exercise rights as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the federal government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion.” The D.C. Circuit’s action is consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby demonstrated that the mandate substantially burdened its exercise of religion, but at odds with rulings against secular, for-profit companies and for the government by the Third and Sixth Circuits.
One aspect of Gilardi is distinctive. Although the Third and Sixth Circuits, ruling for the government, decided that for-profit, secular corporations cannot exercise religion under either the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA, the Tenth Circuit, in support of Hobby Lobby, determined that such corporations are persons who can exercise religion under RFRA. The D.C. Circuit offered a hybrid. Although two judges – Janice Rogers Brown and A. Raymond Randolph – ruled that the Freshway Companies are not persons under either the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA, they nonetheless held that the Gilardis could bring suit because the Freshway Companies are closely held corporations with only the two brothers as owners and shareholders. In that context, the court decided, the brothers suffered a concrete and personal injury and could likely prove that their religion was substantially burdened by the mandate.
The diverse circuit court rulings risk turning the contraceptive mandate issue into a debate over corporate form and institutional rights. If corporations engage in speech under the First Amendment – Citizens United – why can’t they exercise religion?