The Supreme Court's Shredding of the Constitution it's official Corporations are now people
How The Surpreme court sold out the american people
Video can’t be displayed
This video is not available.
How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into ‘People' Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th Amendment belong not only to American citizens but also to corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.
How did this happen? "corporate personhood."
10 Supreme Court Rulings That Turned Corporations Into People
Last week's Hobby Lobby ruling charted new legal territory by granting corporations the same religious rights as real people. The rationale behind the decision—that expanding constitutional rights to businesses is necessary to "protect the rights of people associated with the corporation"—is far from novel. A line of Supreme Court rulings stretching back 200 years has blurred the distinction between flesh-and-blood citizens and the businesses they own, laying the groundwork for Hobby Lobby and the equally contentious Citizens United ruling. Here's a timeline of the corporation's human evolution:
1809 (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux): In the early days of the republic, when state and federal courts were still working out their jurisdictions, the Bank of the United States—a precursor to the US Treasury—sued a Georgia tax collector named Peter Deveaux for property he had seized when the bank failed to pay state taxes. Deveaux argued that, because corporations weren't people, they couldn't sue in federal court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed. This meant businesses could only sue or be sued in federal court if all the shareholders, and at least one member of the opposing party, lived in the same state. According to Burt Neuborne, a corporate law professor at New York University, Wall Street banks hated this decision because it restricted suits to state courts where judges were partial to the banks' local clients—typically Midwestern farmers.
1844 (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v. Letson): It soon became apparent that Marshall's decision in Bank of the United States was unworkable because it put corporations outside the reach of the federal courts. Thirty-five years later, after hearing the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad case, the Supreme Court shifted course, ruling that corporations were "citizens" of the states where they incorporated. Still, it was difficult for a corporation to sue or be sued in federal court unless all its shareholders lived in the same state.
1853 (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad): The Supreme Court later upheld the notion that corporations were citizens, but only for the purposes of court jurisdiction; they did not have the same constitutional rights as actual people. The court also ruled that, for litigation purposes, shareholders would be considered citizens of their company's home state. This made it easier for corporations to sue or be sued in federal court by eliminating jurisdictional conflicts.
1886 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad): Now that corporations were legal citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later, the court declared it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara.
1898 (Smyth v. Ames): Building on the Santa Clara decision, the court voided a Nebraska railroad tax, ruling that it was akin to the government taking a corporation's property without due process—a violation of its 14th Amendment rights. (The decision was overturned in the 1944 Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas decision.)
1906 (Hale v. Henkel): Having blocked unlawful seizures of corporate property, the court went on to shield companies from other kinds of intrusion. Writing for the majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown found that corporations, like people, are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination did not apply).
1931 (Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States): A Russian shipbuilder, Russian Volunteer Fleet, sued the US government, claiming that government officials had unlawfully seized property worth more than $4 million. The high court sided with the company, ruling that even foreign corporations are protected from unlawful government seizures under the Fifth Amendment, which ensures fair treatment by the legal system.
1977 (United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.): After a criminal trial for two linen companies and their owner was dismissed due to jury deadlock, federal prosecutors appealed the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that a second trial violated the companies' rights to be tried only once, expanding the double jeopardy rule to include both humans and corporations.
2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run-up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing that because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby): Corporations are legally people with the right to free speech, but do they have religious rights? Apparently, they do. In 2012, Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store chain, sued the federal government, arguing that a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring it to provide contraception coverage for employees violated shareholders' constitutional rights to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby and found that corporations can assert the religious rights of their owners, greatly expanding the power of shareholders while creating a world of confusion for corporate attorneys.
The Future: If a corporation has First Amendment rights, could it also claim Second Amendment protections? Amazingly, this is a question some scholars are seriously pondering. As Darrell A.H. Miller wrote in his 2011 article "Guns, Inc." in the NYU Law Review, "If Citizens United is taken seriously, the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment and like many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, guarantees liberties to natural and corporate persons alike." Bang!
1809 (Bank of the United States v. Deveaux): In the early days of the republic, when state and federal courts were still working out their jurisdictions, the Bank of the United States—a precursor to the US Treasury—sued a Georgia tax collector named Peter Deveaux for property he had seized when the bank failed to pay state taxes. Deveaux argued that, because corporations weren't people, they couldn't sue in federal court. Chief Justice John Marshall agreed. This meant businesses could only sue or be sued in federal court if all the shareholders, and at least one member of the opposing party, lived in the same state. According to Burt Neuborne, a corporate law professor at New York University, Wall Street banks hated this decision because it restricted suits to state courts where judges were partial to the banks' local clients—typically Midwestern farmers.
1844 (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad v. Letson): It soon became apparent that Marshall's decision in Bank of the United States was unworkable because it put corporations outside the reach of the federal courts. Thirty-five years later, after hearing the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad case, the Supreme Court shifted course, ruling that corporations were "citizens" of the states where they incorporated. Still, it was difficult for a corporation to sue or be sued in federal court unless all its shareholders lived in the same state.
1853 (Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad): The Supreme Court later upheld the notion that corporations were citizens, but only for the purposes of court jurisdiction; they did not have the same constitutional rights as actual people. The court also ruled that, for litigation purposes, shareholders would be considered citizens of their company's home state. This made it easier for corporations to sue or be sued in federal court by eliminating jurisdictional conflicts.
1886 (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad): Now that corporations were legal citizens, corporate attorneys worked to expand their rights. When California officials levied a special tax on the Southern Pacific Railroad, the railroad sued, arguing that singling out the company violated its rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, which was intended to protect freed slaves. In a strange twist, the court reporter—a former railroad man—wrote in the published notes on the case that the 14th Amendment did, in fact, apply to the company. Even though this notion appeared nowhere in the high court's actual ruling, 11 years later, the court declared it was "well settled" that "corporations are persons within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," citing Santa Clara.
1898 (Smyth v. Ames): Building on the Santa Clara decision, the court voided a Nebraska railroad tax, ruling that it was akin to the government taking a corporation's property without due process—a violation of its 14th Amendment rights. (The decision was overturned in the 1944 Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas decision.)
1906 (Hale v. Henkel): Having blocked unlawful seizures of corporate property, the court went on to shield companies from other kinds of intrusion. Writing for the majority, Justice Henry Billings Brown found that corporations, like people, are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment (although the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination did not apply).
1931 (Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States): A Russian shipbuilder, Russian Volunteer Fleet, sued the US government, claiming that government officials had unlawfully seized property worth more than $4 million. The high court sided with the company, ruling that even foreign corporations are protected from unlawful government seizures under the Fifth Amendment, which ensures fair treatment by the legal system.
1977 (United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.): After a criminal trial for two linen companies and their owner was dismissed due to jury deadlock, federal prosecutors appealed the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that a second trial violated the companies' rights to be tried only once, expanding the double jeopardy rule to include both humans and corporations.
2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run-up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing that because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
2014 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby): Corporations are legally people with the right to free speech, but do they have religious rights? Apparently, they do. In 2012, Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based craft store chain, sued the federal government, arguing that a provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring it to provide contraception coverage for employees violated shareholders' constitutional rights to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby and found that corporations can assert the religious rights of their owners, greatly expanding the power of shareholders while creating a world of confusion for corporate attorneys.
The Future: If a corporation has First Amendment rights, could it also claim Second Amendment protections? Amazingly, this is a question some scholars are seriously pondering. As Darrell A.H. Miller wrote in his 2011 article "Guns, Inc." in the NYU Law Review, "If Citizens United is taken seriously, the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment and like many other provisions of the Bill of Rights, guarantees liberties to natural and corporate persons alike." Bang!
CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?
BY NPRARE CORPORATIONS PEOPLE? THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS THEY ARE, AT LEAST FOR SOME PURPOSES. IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, THE COURT HAS DRAMATICALLY EXPANDED CORPORATE RIGHTS.
IT RULED THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY IN CANDIDATE ELECTIONS AND THAT SOME FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS MAY, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH A FEDERAL MANDATE TO COVER BIRTH CONTROL IN THEIR EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLANS.
THESE ARE PERSONAL RIGHTS ACCORDED TO CORPORATIONS. TO MANY, THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATIONS AS PEOPLE SEEMS ODD, TO SAY THE LEAST. BUT IT IS NOT NEW.
THE DICTIONARY DEFINES "CORPORATION" AS "SEVERAL PERSONS UNITED IN ONE BODY FOR A PURPOSE." CORPORATE ENTITIES DATE BACK TO MEDIEVAL TIMES, OBSERVES COLUMBIA LAW PROFESSOR JOHN COFFEE, AN AUTHORITY ON CORPORATE LAW. "YOU COULD THINK OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS PROBABLY THE FIRST ENTITY THAT COULD BUY AND SELL PROPERTY IN ITS NAME," HE SAYS.
INDEED, ELIZABETH POLLMAN, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES, SAYS HAVING AN ARTIFICIAL LEGAL PERSONA WAS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO CHURCHES.
"HAVING A CORPORATION WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO PUT PROPERTY INTO A COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP THAT COULD BE HELD WITH PERPETUAL EXISTENCE," SHE SAYS. "SO IT WOULDN'T BE TIED TO ANY ONE PERSON'S LIFESPAN, OR SUBJECT NECESSARILY TO LAWS REGARDING INHERITING PROPERTY."
LATER ON, IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE, THE ADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION WERE ESSENTIAL TO EFFICIENT AND SECURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. UNLIKE PARTNERSHIPS, THE CORPORATION CONTINUED TO EXIST EVEN IF A PARTNER DIED; THERE WAS NO UNANIMITY REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING; SHAREHOLDERS COULD NOT BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY, ONLY THE CORPORATION AS A WHOLE, SO INVESTORS ONLY RISKED AS MUCH AS THEY PUT INTO BUYING SHARES.
BY THE 1800S, THE PROCESS OF INCORPORATING BECAME RELATIVELY SIMPLE. BUT CORPORATIONS AREN'T MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, LEAVING THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS CORPORATIONS HAVE — AND WHICH CORPORATIONS HAVE THEM. AFTER ALL, COCA-COLA IS A CORPORATION, BUT SO ARE THE NAACP AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND SO ARE SMALL CHURCHES AND LOCAL NONPROFITS.
"ALL THESE TRULY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS MIGHT COME UNDER THE LABEL 'CORPORATION,' " POLLMAN OBSERVES. "AND SO THE REAL DIFFICULTY IS FIGURING OUT HOW TO TREAT THESE DIFFERENT THINGS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE ONLY RIGHT GIVEN TO CORP
IT RULED THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEND MONEY IN CANDIDATE ELECTIONS AND THAT SOME FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS MAY, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH A FEDERAL MANDATE TO COVER BIRTH CONTROL IN THEIR EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLANS.
THESE ARE PERSONAL RIGHTS ACCORDED TO CORPORATIONS. TO MANY, THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATIONS AS PEOPLE SEEMS ODD, TO SAY THE LEAST. BUT IT IS NOT NEW.
THE DICTIONARY DEFINES "CORPORATION" AS "SEVERAL PERSONS UNITED IN ONE BODY FOR A PURPOSE." CORPORATE ENTITIES DATE BACK TO MEDIEVAL TIMES, OBSERVES COLUMBIA LAW PROFESSOR JOHN COFFEE, AN AUTHORITY ON CORPORATE LAW. "YOU COULD THINK OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS PROBABLY THE FIRST ENTITY THAT COULD BUY AND SELL PROPERTY IN ITS NAME," HE SAYS.
INDEED, ELIZABETH POLLMAN, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES, SAYS HAVING AN ARTIFICIAL LEGAL PERSONA WAS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO CHURCHES.
"HAVING A CORPORATION WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO PUT PROPERTY INTO A COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP THAT COULD BE HELD WITH PERPETUAL EXISTENCE," SHE SAYS. "SO IT WOULDN'T BE TIED TO ANY ONE PERSON'S LIFESPAN, OR SUBJECT NECESSARILY TO LAWS REGARDING INHERITING PROPERTY."
LATER ON, IN THE UNITED STATES AND ELSEWHERE, THE ADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION WERE ESSENTIAL TO EFFICIENT AND SECURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. UNLIKE PARTNERSHIPS, THE CORPORATION CONTINUED TO EXIST EVEN IF A PARTNER DIED; THERE WAS NO UNANIMITY REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING; SHAREHOLDERS COULD NOT BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY, ONLY THE CORPORATION AS A WHOLE, SO INVESTORS ONLY RISKED AS MUCH AS THEY PUT INTO BUYING SHARES.
BY THE 1800S, THE PROCESS OF INCORPORATING BECAME RELATIVELY SIMPLE. BUT CORPORATIONS AREN'T MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, LEAVING THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS CORPORATIONS HAVE — AND WHICH CORPORATIONS HAVE THEM. AFTER ALL, COCA-COLA IS A CORPORATION, BUT SO ARE THE NAACP AND THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND SO ARE SMALL CHURCHES AND LOCAL NONPROFITS.
"ALL THESE TRULY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS MIGHT COME UNDER THE LABEL 'CORPORATION,' " POLLMAN OBSERVES. "AND SO THE REAL DIFFICULTY IS FIGURING OUT HOW TO TREAT THESE DIFFERENT THINGS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE ONLY RIGHT GIVEN TO CORP
The ‘corporations are people’ doctrine is a real legal conception Jul 3, 2014, 11:14 AM EDT WASHINGTON — There may be more to that “we the people” notion than you thought.
These are boom times for the concept of “corporate personhood.”
Corporations are people?
Mitt Romney was mocked during the 2012 presidential campaign for the very idea.
But the principle has been lurking in U.S. law for more than a century, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, gave it more oomph this week when it ruled that certain businesses are entitled to exercise religious rights, just as people are.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court’s majority, said protecting the religious rights of closely held corporations, which are often small, family-run businesses, “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.”
In its ruling, the court said closely held corporations with religious objections could not be forced to pay for their employees’ insurance coverage for contraception, as required under President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Four years earlier, the corporations-as-people idea got another big boost when the court voted 5-4 to expand the free speech rights of businesses and labor unions by striking down limits on their political spending. That unleashed a massive flood of private money into political campaigns.
The rulings have triggered renewed debate over the idea of corporations as people, which surfaces in legal cases stretching back to the 1880s.
There are wonky legal discussions about the differences between “artificial persons” (corporations) and “natural persons” (the kind with flesh and blood).
TV comics riff on the notion that fake people have more rights than real people.
There’s a petition drive to amend the Constitution to ensure that “inalienable rights belong to human beings only.”
All of this calls for a brief reality check: Corporations really aren’t people.
Everyone knows this.
Even Romney, who was criticized for being out of touch when he famously told a protester that “corporations are people, my friend.”
The point the GOP presidential candidate was trying to make was that raising taxes on corporations would affect real people because “everything corporations earn ultimately goes back to people.”
The Supreme Court was reasoning in a similar vein when it ruled that the real people who run closely held corporations should be able to exercise religious rights just as do individuals.
Alito, in his ruling, described the concept of corporate personhood as “a familiar legal fiction” that retains its usefulness.
“It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings,” he wrote.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, zinged Alito and the majority for “an expansive notion of corporate personhood.”
She said the “startling breadth” of the court’s ruling could clear the way for corporations to opt out of all sorts of other legal requirements if they can cite a religious objection.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2016, voiced similar concerns.
“Just think about this for a minute,” she said. “It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom.”
Some opponents of the ruling see the expanding view of corporate personhood as a legal fiction run amok.
They say the latest court ruling could encourage corporations to try to claim greater rights in other areas as well — arguing against cruel and unusual punishment if they think a fine is too big, for example, or even seeking a corporate right to bear arms. The courts already have extended to corporations Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches but have declined to provide them Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.
After the Supreme Court’s 2010 campaign finance ruling, attorney Burt Neuborne lamented: “At the rate the court is going, soon we will be able to be adopted by a corporation. Maybe even marry one.”
Now, Neuborne calls the latest court ruling “an immense perversion of the Constitution. Robots don’t have rights, trees don’t have rights, and neither do corporations.”
He warned that the ruling could backfire against corporations if the court goes too far in extending individual rights to businesses. Breaching the wall between corporations and their shareholders, he said, could ultimately make corporations liable for the actions of their shareholders and vice versa.
For example, if Hobby Lobby, one of the companies that sued against covering some forms of contraception, owed someone money, its creditors might try to go after the shareholders, he said.
“I suspect there’s going to be trouble in paradise down the road,” said Neuborne, who wrote a brief for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law arguing against extending religious rights to businesses.
Attorney John Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general, said it makes sense that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals. After the court extended free-speech rights to corporations, “it’s not a big leap to say that a First Amendment protection with respect to religious liberty would also apply to a corporation,” he said.
Whether more rights should be extended, Bursch said, “is a little harder, and we’d all need to think about that.”
Mitt Romney was mocked during the 2012 presidential campaign for the very idea.
But the principle has been lurking in U.S. law for more than a century, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, gave it more oomph this week when it ruled that certain businesses are entitled to exercise religious rights, just as people are.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court’s majority, said protecting the religious rights of closely held corporations, which are often small, family-run businesses, “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.”
In its ruling, the court said closely held corporations with religious objections could not be forced to pay for their employees’ insurance coverage for contraception, as required under President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Four years earlier, the corporations-as-people idea got another big boost when the court voted 5-4 to expand the free speech rights of businesses and labor unions by striking down limits on their political spending. That unleashed a massive flood of private money into political campaigns.
The rulings have triggered renewed debate over the idea of corporations as people, which surfaces in legal cases stretching back to the 1880s.
There are wonky legal discussions about the differences between “artificial persons” (corporations) and “natural persons” (the kind with flesh and blood).
TV comics riff on the notion that fake people have more rights than real people.
There’s a petition drive to amend the Constitution to ensure that “inalienable rights belong to human beings only.”
All of this calls for a brief reality check: Corporations really aren’t people.
Everyone knows this.
Even Romney, who was criticized for being out of touch when he famously told a protester that “corporations are people, my friend.”
The point the GOP presidential candidate was trying to make was that raising taxes on corporations would affect real people because “everything corporations earn ultimately goes back to people.”
The Supreme Court was reasoning in a similar vein when it ruled that the real people who run closely held corporations should be able to exercise religious rights just as do individuals.
Alito, in his ruling, described the concept of corporate personhood as “a familiar legal fiction” that retains its usefulness.
“It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings,” he wrote.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, zinged Alito and the majority for “an expansive notion of corporate personhood.”
She said the “startling breadth” of the court’s ruling could clear the way for corporations to opt out of all sorts of other legal requirements if they can cite a religious objection.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2016, voiced similar concerns.
“Just think about this for a minute,” she said. “It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom.”
Some opponents of the ruling see the expanding view of corporate personhood as a legal fiction run amok.
They say the latest court ruling could encourage corporations to try to claim greater rights in other areas as well — arguing against cruel and unusual punishment if they think a fine is too big, for example, or even seeking a corporate right to bear arms. The courts already have extended to corporations Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches but have declined to provide them Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.
After the Supreme Court’s 2010 campaign finance ruling, attorney Burt Neuborne lamented: “At the rate the court is going, soon we will be able to be adopted by a corporation. Maybe even marry one.”
Now, Neuborne calls the latest court ruling “an immense perversion of the Constitution. Robots don’t have rights, trees don’t have rights, and neither do corporations.”
He warned that the ruling could backfire against corporations if the court goes too far in extending individual rights to businesses. Breaching the wall between corporations and their shareholders, he said, could ultimately make corporations liable for the actions of their shareholders and vice versa.
For example, if Hobby Lobby, one of the companies that sued against covering some forms of contraception, owed someone money, its creditors might try to go after the shareholders, he said.
“I suspect there’s going to be trouble in paradise down the road,” said Neuborne, who wrote a brief for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law arguing against extending religious rights to businesses.
Attorney John Bursch, a former Michigan solicitor general, said it makes sense that corporations have some of the same rights as individuals. After the court extended free-speech rights to corporations, “it’s not a big leap to say that a First Amendment protection with respect to religious liberty would also apply to a corporation,” he said.
Whether more rights should be extended, Bursch said, “is a little harder, and we’d all need to think about that.”
WARREN E. BURGER(1907–1995) VA CHIEFJUSTICE WARREN JUNE 9, 1969(74–3) JUNE 23, 1969–SEPTEMBER 26, 1986(RETIRED) 17 YEARS, 95 DAYS RICHARD NIXON98 HARRY BLACKMUN(1908–1999) MN ASSOCIATEJUSTICE FORTAS MAY 12, 1970(94–0) JUNE 9, 1970–AUGUST 3, 1994(RETIRED) 24 YEARS, 55 DAYS99 LEWIS F. POWELL JR.(1907–1998) VA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE BLACK DECEMBER 6, 1971(89–1) JANUARY 7, 1972[N]–JUNE 26, 1987(RETIRED) 15 YEARS, 170 DAYS100 WILLIAM REHNQUIST(1924–2005) AZ ASSOCIATEJUSTICE J. HARLAN II DECEMBER 10, 1971(68–26) JANUARY 7, 1972[N]–SEPTEMBER 26, 1986(CONTINUED AS CHIEF JUSTICE) 14 YEARS, 262 DAYS101 JOHN PAUL STEVENS(1920–2019) IL ASSOCIATEJUSTICE[O] DOUGLAS DECEMBER 17, 1975(98–0) DECEMBER 19, 1975–JUNE 29, 2010(RETIRED) 34 YEARS, 192 DAYS GERALD FORD102 SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR(1930–2023) AZ ASSOCIATEJUSTICE STEWART SEPTEMBER 21, 1981(99–0) SEPTEMBER 25, 1981–JANUARY 31, 2006(RETIRED) 24 YEARS, 128 DAYS RONALD REAGAN100 WILLIAM REHNQUIST(1924–2005) VA CHIEFJUSTICE BURGER SEPTEMBER 17, 1986(65–33) SEPTEMBER 26, 1986–SEPTEMBER 3, 2005(DIED) 18 YEARS, 342 DAYS103 ANTONIN SCALIA(1936–2016) VA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE REHNQUIST SEPTEMBER 17, 1986(98–0) SEPTEMBER 26, 1986–FEBRUARY 13, 2016(DIED) 29 YEARS, 140 DAYS104 ANTHONY KENNEDY(BORN 1936) CA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE POWELL FEBRUARY 3, 1988(97–0) FEBRUARY 18, 1988–JULY 31, 2018(RETIRED) 30 YEARS, 163 DAYS105 DAVID SOUTER(BORN 1939) NH ASSOCIATEJUSTICE BRENNAN OCTOBER 2, 1990(90–9) OCTOBER 9, 1990–JUNE 29, 2009(RETIRED) 18 YEARS, 263 DAYS GEORGE H. W. BUSH106 CLARENCE THOMAS(BORN 1948) GA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE T. MARSHALL OCTOBER 15, 1991(52–48) OCTOBER 23, 1991–INCUMBENT 32 YEARS, 351 DAYS107 RUTH BADER GINSBURG(1933–2020) NY ASSOCIATEJUSTICE B. WHITE AUGUST 3, 1993(96–3) AUGUST 10, 1993–SEPTEMBER 18, 2020(DIED) 27 YEARS, 39 DAYS BILL CLINTON108 STEPHEN BREYER(BORN 1938) MA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE BLACKMUN JULY 29, 1994(87–9) AUGUST 3, 1994–JUNE 30, 2022(RETIRED) 27 YEARS, 331 DAYS109 JOHN ROBERTS(BORN 1955) MD CHIEFJUSTICE REHNQUIST SEPTEMBER 29, 2005(78–22) SEPTEMBER 29, 2005–INCUMBENT 19 YEARS, 9 DAYS GEORGE W. BUSH110 SAMUEL ALITO(BORN 1950) NJ ASSOCIATEJUSTICE O'CONNOR JANUARY 31, 2006(58–42) JANUARY 31, 2006–INCUMBENT 18 YEARS, 251 DAYS111 SONIA SOTOMAYOR(BORN 1954) NY ASSOCIATEJUSTICE SOUTER AUGUST 6, 2009(68–31) AUGUST 8, 2009–INCUMBENT 15 YEARS, 61 DAYS BARACK OBAMA112 ELENA KAGAN(BORN 1960) MA ASSOCIATEJUSTICE STEVENS AUGUST 5, 2010(63–37) AUGUST 7, 2010–INCUMBENT 14 YEARS, 62 DAYS113 NEIL GORSUCH(BORN 1967) CO ASSOCIATEJUSTICE SCALIA APRIL 7, 2017(54–45) APRIL 10, 2017–INCUMBENT 7 YEARS, 181 DAYS DONALD TRUMP114 BRETT KAVANAUGH(BORN 1965) MD ASSOCIATEJUSTICE KENNEDY OCTOBER 6, 2018(50–48) OCTOBER 6, 2018–INCUMBENT 6 YEARS, 2 DAYS115 AMY CONEY BARRETT(BORN 1972) IN ASSOCIATEJUSTICE GINSBURG OCTOBER 26, 2020(52–48) OCTOBER 27, 2020–INCUMBENT 3 YEARS, 347 DAYS116 KETANJI BROWN JACKSON(BORN 1970) DC ASSOCIATEJUSTICE BREYER APRIL 7, 2022(53–47) JUNE 30, 2022–INCUMBENT 2 YEARS, 100 DAYS JOE BIDEN