Do Corporations Have Religious Beliefs?

Indiana Law Journal Volume 90 | Issue 1 Winter 2015 Do Corporations Have Religious Beliefs? Jason Iuliano Princeton University, Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Law and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Iuliano, Jason (2015) "Do Corporations Have Religious Beliefs?," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 90: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol90/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact . Article 2 Do Corporations Have Religious Beliefs? JASON IULIANO* Despite two hundred years of jurisprudence on the topic of corporate personhood, the Supreme Court has failed to endorse a philosophically defensible theory of the corporation. In this Article, I attempt to fill that void. Drawing upon the extensive philosophical literature on personhood and group agency, I argue that corporations qualify as persons in their own right. This leads me to answer the titular question with an emphatic yes. Contrary to how it first seems, that conclusion does not warrant granting expansive constitutional rights to corporations. It actually suggests the opposite. Using the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate as a case study, I develop this theory of corporate personhood and explore some of its constitutional implications. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 47 I. THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE .......................................................................... 51 A. THE ISSUE .................................................................................................. 51 B. LEGAL THEORIES OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD ....................................... 55 C. CASES DENYING INJUNCTION..................................................................... 63 D. CASES GRANTING INJUNCTION .................................................................. 66 II. PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES OF PERSONHOOD....................................................... 71 III. JOINT INTENTIONALITY ...................................................................................... 75 A. LINGUISTIC SHORTCUT .............................................................................. 76 B. ONTOLOGICAL EMERGENCE ....................................................................... 78 C. SUMMATIVE ACCOUNTS ............................................................................. 81 D. NONSUMMATIVE ACCOUNTS ..................................................................... 83 IV. CORPORATIONS AS PERFORMATIVE PERSONS .................................................... 87 V. CORPORATE SINCERITY ....................................................................................... 93 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 98 INTRODUCTION Do corporations have religious beliefs? In a word, yes. They also have fears, hopes, desires, and worries. Some even love; others get angry. Truth be told, corporations are a pretty emotional bunch. Open any newspaper, and you will see corporate intentionality on full display, such as in the following excerpts:  “Facebook wants to go head-to-head with Google in the fight for smallbusiness advertising.”1  † Copyright © 2015 Jason Iuliano. * Ph.D. candidate in politics, Princeton University; J.D., Harvard Law School. Thanks to Tom Kelly, Madison Kilbride, Philip Pettit, Rebecca Rix, Keith Whittington, and the participants of the American Politics workshop at Princeton University for their valuable discussions relating to this project. 1. Nick Bilton, Facebook Will Allow Users To Share Location, N.Y. TIMES BITS (Mar. 9, 2010, 1:44 PM), http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/facebook-will-allow-users-to 48 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 90:47  “Verizon worries that, without instruction from lawmakers, the [FCC] will continue to be pressured to expand its authority in this area . . . .”2  “Microsoft fears that Google could become a kind of operating system of the Internet . . . .”3  “The Big Ten is angry at Comcast. And Comcast is angry at the Big Ten. The conference needs the cable operator, the nation’s largest, to carry its fledgling network.”4 In this Article, I seek to defend the claim that corporations actually possess these emotions. They genuinely do have worries, fears, and other mental states. These ascriptions are not mere metaphors. They are identifications of legitimate intentional states.5 If I am correct in my assertion, this observation has important implications for corporate personhood. In particular, it shows that corporations are agents in their own right; they possess mental states that are independent of the mental states of their members. In other words, corporations have minds of their own. Moreover, corporations have very sophisticated minds of their own. They exhibit rationality and, accordingly, are able to acquire information from the outside world and update their beliefs and actions in light of such information. In line with today’s prevailing philosophical theories of group agency, I argue that the intentionality and rationality exhibited by corporations is sufficient for them to qualify as persons. Many judges have strongly rejected this claim, defending their denial of corporate personhood by appealing to the belief that corporations lack intentionality.6 Most notably, perhaps, in his Citizens United dissent, Justice Stevens wrote that “corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”7 In this Article, I argue that Justice Stevens’s sentiment is mistaken. I defend the view that corporations are intentional agents and, going even further, that they are persons. They are not flesh-and-blood humans like you and me. Nonetheless, they are persons in a very real sense. Importantly, my argument does not require that corporations be granted the same range of constitutional rights that natural persons enjoy. Instead, its primary purpose is to illustrate that corporations are not mere reflections of their shareholders or employees. As philosophical theories show, they are persons in their own right. -share-location (emphasis added). 2. Eliza Krigman, Verizon: FCC Suit Not Tied to a Plan, POLITICO, Feb. 3, 2011, at 6 (emphasis added). 3. Steve Lohr & Saul Hansell, Microsoft and Google Set To Wage Arms Race, N.Y. TIMES, May, 2, 2006, at C1 (emphasis added). 4. Richard Sandomir, Tempers Flare over Network for Big Ten, N.Y. TIMES, June 23, 2007, at D5 (emphasis added). 5. For a discussion of intentionality, s (...truncated)