Someone who knows please tell us what this means in the larger sense. Does this give standing to others to exempt themselves from the ACA on other grounds?
What does this do for EWTN? Didn’t a state supreme court recently rule that the network had to comply even though it was against their closely held doctrine?
Sounds like it only helps privately held companies perhaps and maybe churches will benefit. Not much help for the rest of us.
Mark Levin will fill us in. He, I believe has an Americus Brief filed in the case. It will be interesting to find out what he says it means. I believe that it is less substantial than all of us may hope. Particularly when it is only 5-4!
it is consistent with citizens united case.
corporations have a first amendment right which means ALL rights in the first.
This is for a closely held corporation.
ALL closely held corporations now can gut parts of obamacare.
all private companies can associate this with this first amendment case. (see cake bakers)
This is a very core case which will freak out the left.
And does the non severability clause mean the whole thing is shot down in flames?