Workers' Comp Law Doesn't Restrict Religious Freedom, Montana Supreme Court Rules

[rug]

Hutterite Christians who live communally must carry insurance for construction jobs completed off site.

January 11, 2013
Melissa Steffan

The Montana Supreme Court has voted 4-3 to uphold a state law that requires religious organizations to carry workers' compensation insurance.

The decision is part of a lawsuit filed by the Big Sky Colony of Hutterites, members of an Anabaptist group who live highly religious lives in communes across the northern United States. According to the Star Tribune, the Hutterites "are primarily agricultural producers but have expanded into construction with success because they can offer lower job bids than many private businesses."

In 2009, the Montana legislature passed a law requiring religious organizations to carry workers' insurance after other contractors said they could not outbid the Hutterites. But the Hutterites filed suit, arguing that the law targeted them and unjustly infringed upon their religious practices.

The divided court ruled 4-3 in favor of the law. According to the Associated Press, the majority found that the "workers' compensation requirement does not interfere with the Hutterites' religious practices but only regulates their commercial activities like any other business."

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/01/workers-comp-law-doesnt-restrict-religious-freedom-montana-supreme-court-rules.html

The decision:

http://applicationengine.mt.gov/getContent?vsId={146FEA76-EA30-4F19-BB74-12930FB1F9A9}&impersonate=true&objectStoreName=PROD%20OBJECT%20STORE&objectType=document

[Jim__]

1. Sounds like a good decision.

Based on reading the article - I had to sign in to access the actual decision - which I didn't do.

[rug]

2. Sorry about that.

I went to the Montana Supreme Court website and got to a pdf of the decision. It must have redirected.

You can get to the Opinion and Order from this page: http://searchcourts.mt.gov/

The docket umber is 2012 MT 320 and the caption of the case is BIG SKY COLONY, INC., and DANIEL E. WIPF v.MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY.

It was a very close decision.

[Jim__]

3. Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

4. What was the dissenting opinion?

Curious as to the reasoning given that supported the Hutterites.

[rug]

5. The dissent 17 pages long.

Try the search above.

[cleanhippie]

6. I was hoping for a laymans summary.

A summary for the layman, that is. Any help is appreciated.

[rug]

7. It's rather fact-specific.

Page 31:

Justice Jim Rice, dissenting.
¶80 To reach its decision, the Court uses waves of generic statements that fail to account
for the facts of this case, the arguments of the Colony, and the applicable legal tests. The
Court makes no effort to determine whether the challenged legislation constitutes a religious
gerrymander, even though courts “must survey meticulously the circumstances of
governmental categories to eliminate, as it were, religious gerrymanders.” Lukumi Babalu,
508 U.S. at 534, 113 S. Ct. at 2227. The Court minimizes the Colony’s claim to merely
“sincere and heartfelt beliefs that its participation in the governmental program violated its
religious beliefs,” and cites to numerous cases that reject claims of that nature, while failing
to acknowledge that this case is factually, and fundamentally, different. Opinion, ¶ 42. I
believe the facts and law, when properly considered, demonstrate that the Legislature created
a clear religious gerrymander applicable only to the Hutterites and that such action was not
justified by a compelling state interest. I would affirm the District Court’s holding that their
right to free exercise of religion was violated.

Page 30:

Justice James C. Nelson, dissenting.
¶75 I join Justice Rice’s well-reasoned and compelling Dissent.
¶76 Although in today’s society and politics the principle is honored more in the breach,
this Country was founded on the seminal precept that there is a wall of separation between
church and state. See Donaldson v. State, 2012 MT 288, ¶ 194, ___ Mont. ___, ___ P.3d ___
(Nelson, J., dissenting). To that end, the First Amendment and Article II, Section 5 of
Montana’s Constitution both contain clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal proscriptions:
Congress and the State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
¶77 Yet here, as Justice Rice explains, in order to level some theoretical economic playing
field and to pacify the complaints of one industry, the Legislature enacted a law targeting
Hutterite colonies and preventing them from being able to practice and comport with
important doctrines of their religion—a religion that defines and drives every aspect of
Colony life.
¶78 Today’s decision allows the State to do exactly what the Montana and United States
Constitutions expressly prohibit. This Court’s decision allows the government to interfere
with the doctrinal belief systems of a religious institution and its members. Apparently,
henceforth, “no law” prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not actually mean “no
law” in Montana. Rather, it means no law, except to the extent that the law greases the
squeaky wheel of a powerful industry.

Essentially, the dissent states this is unconstitutional as applied, that the disputed governmental action targets a protected class, in this case the Hutterites, in violation of the First Amendment. The agument is different from one that says a governmental action is neutral and reflects a compelling governmental interest. Here, the dissent claims the action targetted a group in response to industry pressure.

It would be very interesting to read the parties' briefs on this.

It's a screwy website. To get to the opinion, go to the website: http://courts.mt.gov/supreme/default.mcpx

Then click on the "Opinions/Briefs" tab.

Then click on the "Supreme Court Cases Decided Within the Past 30 Days" link.

Then scroll down to "Big Sky Colony v. DOLI" and you'll find it.

It's worth reading. 90% of the law is reading slowly. The other 10% is using a legal dictionary if necessary. There's nothing mysterious about the law. The more mystery surrounding it, the more it's hiding bullshit. It's well worth the effort.