Closely Held Corporation: Definition, Types, and Examples

See, e.g., Senate Report 5 (“Where [a substantial] burden is placed upon the free exercise of religion, the Court ruled [in Sherbert], the Government must demon strate that it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest.”). And the view that the pre-Smith test included a “least restrictive means” requirement had been aired in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by experts on religious freedom. See, e.g., Hearing on S. 2969 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., 78–79 (1993) (statement of Prof. Douglas Laycock). Ante, at 39; see, e.g., Brief for HHS in No. 13–354, pp. 14–15.

Of Course Corporations Like Hobby Lobby Have Rights Of Conscience, And You Probably Shop At One

The Third Circuit also rejected the claims brought by the Hahns themselves because it concluded that the HHS “[m]andate does not impose any requirements on the Hahns” in their personal capacity. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA’s protection. That disputes among the owners of corporations might arise is not a problem unique to this context. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure.

Closely Held vs. Publicly Held Corporations

Opening dozens of new brick-and-mortar stores annually suggests a high-performing brand – not a distressed one. If Hobby Lobby aimed to close up shop, limiting new store leases and expansions would save significantly on costs. Since 2009, Hobby Lobby set its internal minimum wage well above federal and state requirements. In 2022, the arts & crafts giant boosted store & DC worker minimum pay to $18.50/hour. As a privately held company, Hobby Lobby does not disclose detailed financials.

Hobby Lobby Stores

• For retail industry watchers and investors, Hobby Lobby‘s journey is a case study in the power and potential of private companies.
• From the perspective of those supporting the mandate, the condition was simply a straightforward implication of the use of the corporate form to do business.
• The process typically involves hiring an investment bank to underwrite the offering, filing registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and holding a “roadshow” to market the stock to potential investors.
• Both businesses are closely held corporations, which means the business is owned by a limited number of people and its stock is not publicly traded.
• 29  Congress amended the Social Security Act in response to Lee.

The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business. See post, at 32–35. In making this plea, is hobby lobby publicly traded the dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”).

The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention.17 One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is “an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Corporations, Justice Stevens more recently reminded, “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.

The Bottom Line: No Publicly Traded Hobby Lobby Stock

See supra, at 8–9. See also Senate Report 9 (RFRA’s “compelling interest test generally should not be construed more stringently or more leniently than it was prior to Smith.”); House Report 7 (same). 10  While the Government predicts that this number will decline over time, the total number of Americans working for employers to whom the contraceptive mandate does not apply is still substantial, and there is no legal requirement that grandfathered plans ever be phased out. 3  In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.

In the retail world, grocery chain Albertsons raised $800 million in a June 2020 IPO, and crafts retailer JOANN raised $131 million by going public in March 2021. “From the very beginning, our purpose has been to honor God in all that we do. We believe that it is by God‘s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We are guided by our faith in everything, including how we conduct our business.” Hobby Lobby is a titan of the arts and crafts retail industry, boasting over 900 stores across the United States and $5 billion in annual revenue as of 2020.

In any event, our decision in these cases need not result in any detrimental effect on any third party. As we explain, see infra, at 43–44, the Government can readily arrange for other methods of providing contraceptives, without cost sharing, to employees who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance plans due to their employers’ religious objections. The court then held that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim. 3d, at 1140–1147.

Here, in contrast, the plaintiffs do assert that funding the specific contraceptive methods at issue violates their religious beliefs, and HHS does not question their sincerity. Because the contraceptive mandate forces them to pay an enormous sum of money—as much as $475 million per year in the case of Hobby Lobby—if they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial burden on those beliefs. 26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(b), (d). This is indeed “scarcely what Congress contemplated.” Ibid.

Second, if RFRA’s original text were not clear enough, the RLUIPA amendment surely dispels any doubt that Congress intended to separate the definition of the phrase from that in First Amendment case law. Third, the pre-Smith case of Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc., 366 U. 617, suggests, if anything, that for-profit corporations can exercise religion. Finally, the results would be absurd if RFRA, a law enacted to provide very broad protection for religious liberty, merely restored this Court’s pre-Smith decisions in ossified form and restricted RFRA claims to plaintiffs who fell within a category of plaintiffs whose claims the Court had recognized before Smith.