WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court seemed inclined to agree Tuesday that the religious objections of business owners may protect them from a requirement in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act that health insurance plans cover all types of contraceptives.
With both spring snow and demonstrators gathering on the sidewalk outside, the justices spent a spirited 90 minutes debating religious conviction, equal treatment for female workers and whether the court would be opening the door for religious challenges to all sorts of government regulation.
It is difficult to predict a precise outcome based on the justices’ wide-ranging questions and statements. But a majority did seem to come together on the threshold question of whether a corporation can even hold religious views.
The conservative wing of the court seemed to agree that the challengers in the two cases — closely held corporations owned by families whose religious beliefs the government does not question — could be covered by a federal law that provides great protection for the exercise of religion.
So for the contraceptive requirement to apply to the companies, the government would have to show that it has a compelling interest in enforcing the requirement, that this does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, and that there was no less intrusive way to provide coverage to female workers.
As is often the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy — who voted two years ago to find Obama’s health-care law unconstitutional — seemed to hold the deciding vote.
Some of his remarks and questions favored the government. He was concerned, for instance, about workers being denied coverage to which they were entitled by law because of their employers’ objections.
But Kennedy may have signaled a deeper concern when he raised the worry that the government’s reasoning would mean there was little that employers could object to funding. Kennedy told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. that under Verrilli’s view, a corporation “could be forced in principle to pay for abortions.”
Verrilli said there are laws against that.
“But your reasoning would permit that,” Kennedy responded.
Verrilli wanted to talk more about Kennedy’s other point and tried to get the justices to focus on the rights of the employees, who would be denied the best type of contraceptive coverage for them.
The three liberal and female justices were skeptical and aggressive questioners of Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing two companies that object to providing coverage for emergency contraception and intrauterine devices (IUDs).
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan continually pressed Clement on whether his argument could be extended to employers that decline to pay for blood transfusions or vaccines because of religious objections.
“The entire U.S. code” as it applies to corporations would have to be held to the highest constitutional scrutiny, Kagan said.
“So another employer comes in, and that employer says, ‘I have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws.’ And then another employer comes in, ‘I have a religious objection to minimum wage laws.’ And then another, family leave. And then another, child labor laws,” Kagan said.
Clement said that there is no reason to believe that would happen, and that courts could decide whether such claims had merit.