I am not a lawyer, and I am not even related to any lawyers by blood more closely than first cousins, once and twice removed. And even those relatives have given up the practice of law to pursue other interests. So I won’t attempt to offer analysis, but here are short summaries of two of today’s rulings via TPM:
SCOTUS Rejects Red States’ Bid To Throw Out Obamacare
The Supreme Court rejected on Thursday Texas’ challenge to the Affordable Care Act, in a 7-2 decision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, said that the challengers had not met the procedural threshold to bring the case.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to dismantle the 2010 law marks the third time that the Affordable Care Act has survived a major Supreme Court challenge.
Only Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented in the case decided Thursday. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.
It was red state yahoos who brought the case forward, IIRC, and it sounds like it got kicked out because zeroing out the mandate (Republicans did this!) meant they couldn’t claim harm? Something like that. Is this a significant ruling that is likely to shut down future efforts to trash the ACA, or will we be playing whack-a-mole forever? I have no idea, but maybe someone who understands it can tell us.
Here’s another ruling summary via TPM:
Unanimous SCOTUS Favors Religious Freedom Over LGBTQ Rights In Foster Care Case
The Supreme Court decided Thursday that the city of Philadelphia’s decision to stop contracting with a Catholic foster care agency unless it placed children with same-sex couples violates the First Amendment.
The case was seen as a clue for how the conservative Court will treat LGBTQ rights in the future, though the justices unanimously agreed on the final judgment that the particulars of the Philadelphia case implicated religious freedom. The justices were splintered in their rationales, though, with multiple concurring opinions.
Okay, this one pisses me off because it’s unanimous. (I expect stuff like this from the court’s Bony Carrot wing but not from Justice Sotomayor, et al.) This must be more nuanced than “everyone agrees it’s permissible for churches to discriminate against LGBTQ people,” right? Please explain if you’re so inclined; decisions are embedded at linked articles.
Otherwise, open thread.