Replies

Every way the Supreme Court could rule in Hobby Lobby
06/28/14 09:43 AM—Updated 06/28/14 03:41 PM
2 save share group 254
By Irin Carmon

“There’s no employer mandate, so there’s no substantial burden. The theory that five of the Justices seemed to take most seriously at oral argument was Martin Lederman’s, which is that there is no “substantial burden” on religious exercise at stake because the government isn’t forcing Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance in the first place – or as Lederman puts it, “there’s no employer mandate.” If there’s no government force, except paying a fine, there’s no RFRA violation.

Justice Kennedy seemed highly intrigued by this theory, which was introduced early on by the female Justices. “Assume hypothetically that it’s a wash—that the employer would be in about the same position if he paid the penalty and the … employee went out and got the insurance and that the employee’s wages were raised slightly … and that it’s a wash so far as the employer [is] concerned,” he asked Paul Clement, arguing for Hobby Lobby. “Then what would your case be?”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/every-way-the-supreme-court-could-rule-hobby-lobby

“Chief Justice John Roberts could be the “swing” vote as he was two years ago when siding with the court’s more liberal members to allow the law’s “individual mandate” to go into effect.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/29/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html