Funny that you would link to that article, as I participated in the case that is discussed there and the quote relates to a passage in the opinion that Justice Alito based on the analysis presented in my brief. There is a difference between a closely held (i.e., non-public) corporation whose owners all agree on a corporate purpose other than profit, like Hobby Lobby, and a public company like Tesla. It's true that some corporations don't have to "maximize profits", which is why I noted that Tesla is a for profit, publicly traded corporation. Even a for profit corporation that is not publicly traded has to be run to maximize shareholder value if that is what some of the shareholders demand (see Ebay v. Newmark).
There is so much wrong with your reply I don't know where to start but I'll try to keep it short. While the Hobby Lobby decision relates to closely held corporations, it applies to publicly traded corporations as well. The Supreme Court, however, made the point that:
"HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. HHS has also provided no evidence that the purported problem of determining the sincerity of an asserted religious belief moved Congress to exclude for-profit corporations from RFRA's protection. That disputes among the owners of corporations might arise is not a problem unique to this context. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by, for example, dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes."
You must understand what this means if you "participated in the case" (whatever that means). And Samuel Alito even quoted you in his decision!
Anyway, so that others understand, what the Court is saying is that the States govern this issue. But perhaps more importantly, it's difficult to image any large publicly traded company having shareholders sharing one belief, such as in the Hobby Lobby case.
So now we must go back to what State legislation says. We can't go through all 50, so I'll again refer you again to Lynn Stout, the distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School in her NYT's article (sorry but I like her credentials over your Alito credentials) :
"State codes (including that of Delaware, the preeminent state for corporate law) similarly allow corporations to be formed for "any lawful business or purpose,” and the corporate charters of big public firms typically also define company purpose in these broad terms. And corporate case law describes directors as fiduciaries who owe duties not only to shareholders but also to the corporate entity itself, and instructs directors to use their powers in “the best interests of the company.” "
What is in the "best interests of the company"? You said this:
"by law it has to focus on maximizing financial value for shareholders" <- these are your words that I said are WRONG!
The reason you are wrong is because you fail to understand the "Business Judgement Rule". That rule is used in determining the best interests of the company. You must say they are "maximizing profits"? Right. Well, if you do understand this rule, and that is your answer (i.e. maximizing profits) then please explain how the 2011 case of Air Products, Inc v. Airgas, used the business judgement rule to allow Airgas directors to refuse to sell the company, even though a sale would have given Airgas' shareholders a hefty profit?
I await your reply.
