“The question in this case is whether all Americans will
have religious freedom, and be able to live and do business
according to their faith, or whether the federal government
can pick and choose what faith is … who are the faithful …
and where and when they can exercise that faith.”
The Hahns’ case—in conjunction with that of another
family-owned business, Hobby Lobby, owned by the Green
family of Oklahoma—was argued at the U.S. Supreme Court
on March 25. A decision in the case was expected in June.
Essentially, Wenger says, the court will rule on whether
family businesses “are protected by the religious liberty
rights in our Constitution, and whether the owners of these
corporations lose their constitutionally protected religious
liberties when they open the doors for business.”
After all, if you’re running a family business, “it’s not as if
it’s some abstract entity out there that operates on its own,”
Wenger says. “It’s operated by real people who stay awake at
night worrying about how they’re going to pay the bills. We
can make things in the Constitution ridiculously abstract,
but at the end of the day, the court has to grapple with the
fact that these are real people who have real convictions at
stake.”
If the court somehow decides that neither family compa-
nies nor their owners have any rights, Wenger says, “our
religious liberty rights are going to mean less and less in the
modern age, particularly as government seems to be getting
more hostile toward religious beliefs. Morality is changing,
and the kind of morality that’s being pushed by the govern-
ment is changing. We’re going to have a lot more situations
where religious freedom could be—and is being—burdened.
So it’s critical that the court get this right.”
One unfortunate side effect of suing the federal govern-
ment—and having your case go all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court—is that you attract a lot of attention to
yourself. That can be good for your case, and good for your
ego, if you happen to like the spotlight. The Hahns don’t.
“As attorneys, we feel like it’s important for people to
know what’s going on in these cases, because there’s a level
of sympathy that people have when they understand the
difficulty that this mandate causes in people’s lives,” Wenger
says. “But we’re really limited in terms of media because [the
Hahns] are not looking at getting attention for themselves—
they just want to run a business, according to their faith.
They would rather not be meeting with media at all.”
36
Unfortunately, the higher the case has moved up the
litigation ladder, the more media attention it’s received. For
the Hahns, Wenger says, that attention has spurred not
excitement, but “resignation, because they felt it was their
duty … a way to maintain their religious liberties, and help
others. But I can tell you, they’d have been glad for someone
else to take the lead on this.”
“The Hahns are a great example,” Cortman says. “It’s
an incredible testimony, when a family is brave enough to
take on the difficulties of litigating a case, going against the
administration, going to court all this time, fighting for their
beliefs at great cost to themselves.”
Looking back at all that, Anthony says, “There’s more at
stake here than I realized. Allowing people to work hard,
make a living, and grow their businesses—without having
government intervening and causing issues and concerns.
First Amendment rights. Religious liberty. Freedom. It just
feels like they’re all being taken away. It’s very difficult, but
… here we are.”
“These people are the real deal,” Wenger says. “They’re
not, as some might suggest, Christians who are just trying
to get out from under the rules that everyone else has to
follow. They love God, and the people around them … and
just want to be able to continue to do that in freedom.”
This article originally appeared in Faith & Justice magazine:
alliancedefendingfreedom.org/faith-and-justice. Reprinted with permission.
Editor’s Note: On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued
a 5-4 ruling affirming that businesses do not have to surren-
der their religious freedom in order to remain in business.
On October 2, 2014, the Hahn family received a permanent
order against the abortion-pill mandate.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt
Bowman said, “All Americans should oppose unjust laws
that allow the government to force people to give up their
constitutionally protected freedom to live and work accord-
ing to their beliefs. In light of this federal court order and
the Supreme Court’s ruling that upheld that principle, we
hope other courts currently considering similar cases will
issue their own orders upholding the right of family-owned
businesses to be free from this type of government coercion.”
ADF continues to litigate numerous lawsuits against the
mandate on behalf of both for-profit and non-profit entities.