Corporations As People: Understanding Federal Law

The concept of corporate personhood is a highly controversial legal principle in the United States, which grants corporations certain legal rights and protections that are typically reserved for natural persons. This idea has been shaped by a series of Supreme Court rulings over the past 200 years, with landmark cases such as the 1819 Dartmouth College case, the 1888 steel-mining company case, and the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. These rulings have had far-reaching consequences, including the ability of corporations to enter contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and even assert religious rights. The extension of constitutional rights to corporations has sparked ongoing debates and calls for reform, with critics arguing that corporate personhood grants excessive power to businesses and undermines the original intent of constitutional protections.

The 14th Amendment and corporate personhood

Corporate personhood refers to the ongoing legal debate over whether rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to juridical persons, including corporations. While corporations are not specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution, they have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, such as the rights to own property, enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued.

The first significant step towards corporate personhood was the 1819 Dartmouth College case, which established that corporations were entitled to some constitutional protections. However, the more explicit link between the 14th Amendment and corporate personhood came in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. case. In this case, the Supreme Court appeared to grant a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, even though it was not explicitly stated in the Court's opinion.

The Supreme Court has continued to affirm the assumption of corporate personhood in subsequent cases, such as Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs, where the Court accepted that corporations are "persons" for legal purposes. The Court has also ruled that the 14th Amendment does not prohibit certain types of state regulations on corporations, demonstrating that corporate personhood does not exempt corporations from all government regulation.

The concept of corporate personhood has been controversial, with critics arguing that it leads to expanded corporate rights while excusing corporations from certain responsibilities. There have been calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, particularly after the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case in 2010, which upheld the rights of corporations to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment.

Corporations' right to free speech

In the United States, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech for individuals. But what about corporations?

The First Amendment's free speech clause states: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." This limitation on Congress extends to all governmental entities, but does it include corporations? The answer is complex and has been the subject of much debate and litigation.

The concept of corporate personhood recognises corporations as "people" under the law, with certain legal rights and responsibilities akin to those of human beings. This includes the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued, and enjoy limited constitutional rights, including free speech. The Supreme Court has affirmed that corporations have the right to "express their political views", spend money on elections, and advertise their products.

However, this right is not absolute. The Court has upheld restrictions on commercial speech, particularly in cases where corporations attempt to influence elections or engage in political advocacy. For example, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court upheld restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations, and in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2002), the Court allowed restrictions on judicial candidates personally soliciting campaign funds. These rulings balance the free speech rights of corporations with other governmental interests, such as anti-corruption measures.

The extension of free speech rights to corporations remains controversial, with some calling for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood altogether. Despite this, the current interpretation of the First Amendment allows corporations to engage in political discourse and influence public opinion, demonstrating the significant impact of corporate personhood on the American political landscape.

Corporations' right to religious freedom

In the United States, corporations have been granted certain legal rights and duties akin to those of human beings. This concept, known as corporate personhood, has been a subject of debate and controversy, with some arguing that corporations should not be afforded the same rights as individuals.

One of the most contentious issues surrounding corporate personhood is the question of whether corporations have a right to religious freedom. This debate gained prominence after the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, where the Court held that "'closely held' for-profit corporations" could be considered "persons" with religious freedom rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This decision sparked a broader discussion about the extent of corporate religious rights and their potential impact on various aspects of society.

The Hobby Lobby case involved a closely held, family-owned corporation with religious objections to certain types of contraception. The Court's ruling allowed Hobby Lobby to claim religious freedom rights and exempt itself from providing contraceptive coverage to its employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act. This decision raised concerns about its potential implications for other healthcare benefits, employment practices, and beyond. For example, some businesses have sought to invoke religious objections to refuse participation in gay weddings, further complicating the debate surrounding corporate religious freedom.

While the Hobby Lobby decision specifically applied to closely held corporations, it has sparked discussions about the religious rights of other types of corporations. Some argue that corporations, regardless of their structure or ownership, should be able to express their owners' or shareholders' religious beliefs. On the other hand, critics worry about the potential for discrimination and the erosion of employees' rights if corporations are given too much leeway to make decisions based on religious grounds.

In conclusion, the question of corporations' right to religious freedom remains a complex and contentious issue. While the Hobby Lobby case established that closely held corporations can exercise religious freedom, the full extent of these rights and their impact on society is still being debated and will likely continue to be a subject of legal and ethical discussion in the years to come.

Corporations' right to privacy

The question of whether corporations have a right to privacy is a complex and highly debated topic. While some argue that corporations should be afforded certain legal rights and protections similar to those of natural persons, others disagree, highlighting the potential for abuse of power and the infringement of citizens' rights.

In the United States, the concept of corporate personhood has evolved over time, with federal statutes and court interpretations playing a significant role in shaping the rights and responsibilities of corporations. Under US law, the word "person" is often interpreted to include corporations, as stated in 1 U.S.C. § 1: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

This interpretation has had far-reaching consequences, including the ability of corporations to enter into contracts, sue and be sued, and be held liable under civil and criminal law. Additionally, individual shareholders are generally not held responsible for the corporation's debts and damages, providing a layer of protection for investors.

However, when it comes to the right to privacy, the matter becomes more nuanced. The Privacy Act of 1974, for example, does not extend privacy rights to corporations or organizations, as it specifically refers to "individuals," defined as citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. Similarly, in the case of United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, the Court rejected the argument that the use of the word "taxpayer" in regulations required the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination warning to be given to a corporation.

While the United States Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to privacy, courts have interpreted this right from other enshrined rights. The Supreme Court of India has also recognized the intrinsic right to privacy within the Constitution of India, which could have implications for companies operating in that jurisdiction.

The debate surrounding corporate privacy rights is multifaceted, and scholars have yet to fully explore all its complexities. Some argue that corporate privacy rights should be evaluated based on the privacy interests of the people involved in the corporation, rather than solely on the notion of corporate personhood. The nature and purpose of the corporation also come into play, with publicly traded corporations constituted for business purposes differing significantly from smaller organizations with social, political, or religious aims.

Corporations' right to equal protection under the law

The concept of corporate personhood has evolved over the years, with corporations gaining rights and protections under the United States Constitution. While the word "corporation" is not mentioned in the Constitution, corporations are considered "persons" for legal purposes, allowing them to enter contracts, sue and be sued, and enjoy certain constitutional protections.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection, ensuring impartial governance without distinctions between individuals based on differences irrelevant to legitimate governmental objectives. This clause has been interpreted to include corporations, granting them equal protection under the law.

In the 1823 case of Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, the Supreme Court explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would to property owned by natural persons. This decision built upon the landmark Dartmouth College case in 1819, which established that corporations were entitled to some constitutional protections.

However, it is important to note that corporations do not have the same privacy rights as individuals under the Privacy Act of 1974, and they cannot claim constitutional protections unavailable to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognised a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for corporations.

The recognition of corporate personhood has been controversial, with calls for reform and a constitutional amendment to abolish it. Critics argue that corporate personhood grants special privileges to private wealth and allows corporations to override local democratic decision-making.

Frequently asked questions