The showdown is here: We have a private company that is outright refusing to obey the Obamacare HHS mandate after having been denied an injunction while their lawsuit is pending. This is going to cost the owners of Hobby Lobby a pretty penny, bless 'em. I just hope they can survive it.
What perhaps someone can explain to me is the weird inconsistency among the different federal court regions with regard to granting injunctions to prevent private businesses from being crushed by fines while their suits are pending. Hercules Industries got an injunction while their suit is pending. Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. just got an injunction in the last day or so. But Hobby Lobby has to be smooshed. Why? I assume it's because the particular circuit (the 10th) ruling on their case was less sympathetic than the courts who happened to examine the other cases. But SCOTUS denied an appeal for an emergency injunction for Hobby Lobby as well, and this paragraph concerning the Korte and Luitjohan case is a little puzzling:
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.’”
I'm not sure I'm getting that. It seems to be saying that the very same request--for an injunction to prevent grave harm while a suit is pending--is subject to a different evidential standard in federal courts depending on whether the court in question is the Supreme Court or a Circuit Court. Do I have that right? So if the 10th Circuit was more or less filled with biased liberal jerks exercising extremely poor legal judgement, and if this explains their refusal of an injunction, SCOTUS isn't supposed to second-guess the 10th Circuit and prevent irreparable harm to Hobby Lobby while their suit continues unless, well, unless something. Unless the wrongness of their refusing the injunction was even clearer to somebody or other (or enough somebodies or others) on SCOTUS than it is.
Meanwhile, if you need anything in the crafty line (alas, I am not remotely crafty), please go buy it at Hobby Lobby and show your support.
Comments (9)
No comments for Hobby Lobby?
Posted by The Masked Elephant | January 1, 2013 10:38 AM
By the way, readers: We've been having an uptick in error messages when you attempt to access W4 pages. This may be causing a downturn in comments (in addition to the fact that people are taking a holiday). If you come to W4 and get an error message, simply hitting "refresh" should load the page. This has been a public service announcement. :-)
Posted by Lydia | January 1, 2013 11:17 AM
You have that right, except for the idea that it's the very same request. The relief is largely similar---although I haven't read these opinions and am not 100% positive what writs were being requested---but the procedural posture is not the same at all. A court, such as the Court of Appeals for a particular circuit, can always grant an injunction maintaining the status quo while it hears the merits of a case. That's different than asking a superior court that hasn't yet agreed to hear a case to halt enforcement of the lower court's order and for it to do so on an abbreviated briefing schedule. It's the difference between asking one court to keep all of the cards in front of it and asking a court to second guess another court. Thus, the first procedure is part of the ordinary procedural rules while the second requires an extraordinary writ under the All Writs Act. (On a side note, Sotomayor's opinion doesn't identify the writ in question and the petition apparently just asked for an "injunction"; I think this would be a supersedeas, but I'm not positive.)
But in short, the difference in the procedural posture is an important element: the burdens and standards of review make a big difference in how courts handle things. The farther a decision is from an adjudication on the merits, the clearer your proof has to be.
Posted by Titus | January 1, 2013 5:42 PM
I think I understand that, but...
I don't _think_ the lower court would have made a positive order that is to be enforced. As I understand it, the lower court merely refused to grant an injunction halting the enforcement of the federal law against Hobby Lobby. This merely leave things as they would have been if Hobby Lobby hadn't brought the suit. Meaning that the federal govt. gets to enforce the law on the books even while the suit goes forward.
But only to second-guess them about granting a halt to the federal government's enforcement. This doesn't prejudice what either court may decide on the merits of the case later.
Posted by Lydia | January 1, 2013 7:14 PM
It's a Supreme Court opinion - don't try to make sense of it, you'll only injure yourself.
Posted by c matt | January 4, 2013 12:24 PM
Good point, C Matt. I do wonder precisely how the decision is made as to who writes such one-man opinions for SCOTUS. Did Sotomayor get the opportunity just because it was her turn, and to what extent does this reflect the opinions of any other SCOTUS members besides herself?
Posted by Lydia | January 4, 2013 12:26 PM
I can't speak to the legal stuff, but we just got back from supporting Hobby Lobby by our purchase of birthday and anniversary gifts!
Posted by Beth Impson | January 4, 2013 1:42 PM
Did Hobby Lobby get a 1-year delay? They should, right?
Posted by Truth Unites... and Divides | October 8, 2013 8:03 PM
Yes, they later got an injunction--later than the date of this post. I don't quite understand how it came about that they had another opportunity to get an injunction.
Here is a fairly recent update.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/19/obama-admin-takes-hobby-lobby-to-supreme-court-to-force-it-to-obey-hhs-mandate/
Posted by Lydia | October 9, 2013 9:48 AM