Nathan Adams IV is a Partner in the
Tallahassee office
Timely Topics
Does a closely held for-profit corporation have a
constitutionally or statutorily protected right to exercise
religion under the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)? The U.S. Supreme Court considered
this question for the first time last month in oral argument in two
cases: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius. The federal
government argued that the companies do not have any such rights,
on the theory that engaging in for-profit activity is essentially
inconsistent with the exercise of religion. RFRA itself states that
it is to "be construed in favor of a broad protection of
religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of
this chapter and the Constitution." But the government argued
that it would be an unwarranted expansion of RFRA to allow
for-profit corporations to make claims for
