What does it say about the Hobby Lobby case that the justices wouldn’t take this case?
First, it says they think the lower courts got it right, I suppose. Otherwise, this case would be constrained by whatever they rule on Hobby Lobby. By not telling the lower courts to at least relook this, they are assuming their position on Hobby Lobby won’t affect this case.
So, since Hobby Lobby is about a business being permitted to have a set of principles by which their business is guided, this doesn’t sound promising to me regarding Hobby Lobby.
Good point, but if SCOTUS was about to go in the opposite direction, issuing a broad ruling protecting the religious rights of business owners to run their businesses according to their moral beliefs, wouldn’t that make sense in chucking the case as well?
I mean, the Justices certainly know how the HobbyLobby case will go. I don’t think they’d remand a case back to the lower courts based on a ruling that hasn’t been issued yet ... They’d just drop the case completely (as they have apparantly done) and let any future action by the plaintiff or defendent wait for the ruling.
What does it say about the Hobby Lobby case that the justices wouldn’t take this case?
* * *
Interesting question. Actually, I think it may portend the opposite. If they kind of know how they intend to rule on that (in favor of HL), then I think that would have bearing on the photographer’s case. So maybe they’re kind of “saying” the photographer should wait and see, and maybe his lawyer should take a new approach after the HL ruling.