Wednesday, March 26, 2014

More on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Mark Walsh wrote in SCOTUSblog ACA’s return taxes the High Court describing the arguments almost as a short story.

Dahlia Lithwick does one better in Is the Contraception Mandate Doomed?. While describing the legal issues raised in the arguments she manages to answer "What kind of contraceptive method are you?" for each of the nine justices.

The ACLU wonders, Does Hobby Lobby Even Have Standing?. "These companies say that they suffer direct harm: the contraception mandate costs them money. That is what the Tenth Circuit in Hobby Lobby briefly noted: the companies “face an imminent loss of money, traceable to the contraceptive-coverage requirement.” But even if that is true (which was the subject of tough questions at the arguments), paying that money does not directly affect any individual’s ability to freely exercise religion. Only the employees and officers can directly exercise their individual religious beliefs. And they are not the ones paying to comply with the regulations. They are separate from the company."

Kenneth Jost tweets that so far in this Supreme Court term, "SCOTUS: another 9-0 ruling, still no 5-4; never before has Roberts Court reached April w/o a 5-4 decision."

No comments: