The more I read the brief filed by 44 corporate law professors in the Obamacare contraceptive mandate cases pending before the Supreme Court, the angrier I get. The brief has a lot of whoppers. Here's one:
The Brief claims that:
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga want to argue, in effect, that the corporate veil is only a one-way street: its shareholders can get protection from tort or contract liability by standing behind the veil, but the corporation can ask a court to disregard the corporate veil on this occasion.[1]
To the best knowledge of this author, that claim is false. No one arguing on behalf of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood has claimed that they are somehow immune to the ordinary rules of corporate veil piercing. They are not asking for a one-way street. Rather, they are asking that the law as it stands be applied them both forward and in reverse.
I'm hard at work on a comprehensive reply to the Brief. Watch this space for further documentation of the problems with the Brief and, I hope soon, the full rebuttal.
