Guess SCOTUS sees the challenge on contraception to be a duplicate of the Hobby Lobby case, but the forced employer coverage provision is now 'legal', it would seem.
The Roberts’ case earlier was about individuals being forced to buy insurance,
so why would the employer requirement not be ruled in the same way as that abortion of a ruling?
When there are similar cases in the Scotus pipeline don’t the Supremes usually ask the plaintiffs to combine their presentations? Doesn’t seem to be happening in this case. And in this case they’re letting a lower court ruling stand which is itself a ruling. Maybe I have to let Levin explain it before I get out the tar bucket?
Law of the land - like plessy vs Ferguson and the fugitive slave act.
Exactly right. The contraceptive challenge is alive and well and will be decided in Hobby Lobby. The only additional issue Liberty University raised was the claim that it is unconstitutional to require employers to provide any health insurance at all. The lower courts all rejected this argument; the reasoning is that if the Commerce Clause permits Congress to set minimum wages (something SCOTUS has upheld for more than 50 years), it also authorizes Congress to set minimum benefits.