Supreme Court tosses ObamaCare contraception ruling

The Hill ^ | April 27, 2015 | Sarah Ferris

[jazusamo]

The Supreme Court on Monday gave new life to a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, striking down a previous ruling in favor of the federal government.

An appeals court in Cincinnati will now reconsider

the legal challenge from the Catholic groups in Michigan and Tennessee that had sought exemptions from an ObamaCare provision that requires employers to cover birth control for all workers.

The justices asked the lower court to reconsider the case in light of last year's landmark ruling on the contraception mandate. That ruling, which was issued last June, decided that the arts-and-crafts retailer, Hobby Lobby, could seek an exemption from the contraception mandate for religious reasons. Since then, religious-affiliated companies and organizations have revived their legal challenges of the provision.

The ruling in Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell marks the third time in a year that the court has thrown out decisions in favor of the Obama administration, sending the cases back to the lower courts.

The court also gave hope to Catholic groups last month when it struck down a lower court’s ruling requiring the University of Notre Dame to follow the birth control mandate. That court will now revisit the case from the Roman Catholic university.

[Big Giant Head]

WHAT HAPPENED to the lack of sever ability? This ACA law, as I recall, was written with no sever ability clause intentionally, to help force things along. When one bit is found unconstitutional, the whole bill dies. Why is it still functioning?

[Know et al]

Excellent point BGH. The problem is that congress has given Obummer a free hand to adjust according to his taste. With the wave of a pen, he can make changes whenever he chooses.

I know. It's unconstitutional but what else is new?

We are no longer a free republic. Every branch of our “government” is corrupted.

We are back to a point of taxation without representation.

[SgtHooper]

No, it means that based on the upper court’s decision, it is typically remanded back to the lower court to then render a decision consistent with the upper court’s decision.

[fuzzthatwuz]

Thanks for the ping, Dave. Interesting times when the SOTUS remands cases with a “pretty please”.

[fwdude]

...it means that based on the upper court’s decision, it is typically remanded back to the lower court to then render a decision consistent with the upper court’s decision.

Then, why doesn't the upper court just reverse the lower court's decision with its own opinion as it does numerous times in other cases?

[Sacajaweau]

Why is the Federal Government in the insurance business in the first place...and in the sex business?

[Mr. Lucky]

I think you'll find that the Supreme Court's Order in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby vacated the Decision of the 10th Circuit while affirming the Decision of the 3rd Circuit. The Supreme Court specifically found that individuals who organize their closely held business in corporate form do not surrender their religious liberties by doing so.

While the Supreme Court could have affirmed the 3rd Circuit without an Opinion, the Opinion of the Supreme Court is binding upon all circuits, while an opinion of a Circuit Court is not.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you ... the folded layers confused me.

[SgtHooper]

It many cases it can be a clear reversal. But it still goes back to the first court to then clean-up any issues inconsistent with that decision. Such as damages, injunctions, etc., that the first court may have errantly decided. It is essentially a feedback loop.