The Supreme Court issued rulings on prominent cases this week, one for Obamacare and another concerning religious liberty.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of upholding Obamacare against the latest Republican challenge, preserving key protections for millions with preexisting health conditions.
The decision focused on the law’s individual mandate, requiring Americans to have insurance. The law’s challengers, made up of 18 red states, urged the court to rule that Obamacare’s requirement for nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, known as the individual mandate, is unconstitutional. They argued for that reason the law should be scrapped, according to NBC News.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the court’s opinion, said the states’ case did not have the legal standing to try to upend the law, dismissing it, according to The Washington Post.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Obamacare in the latest GOP challenge arguing a recent change to the individual mandate made it unconstitutional.
The highest court of the land in a 7-2 vote ruled the GOP challengers, 18 red states led by Texas, did not have legal standing.
Two out of three Trump appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the majority.
Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Both Alito and Gorsuch dissented and said the court should have declared it unconstitutional.
NBC News reported:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, remains valid, rejecting a claim by a group of conservative states that a recent change to the law made it unconstitutional.
The law’s challengers, 18 red states led by Texas, urged the court to rule that Obamacare’s requirement for nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay an income tax penalty — known as the individual mandate — is unconstitutional. For that reason, they said, the entire law must be scrapped.
“The plaintiffs claim that without the penalty the act’s minimum essential coverage requirement is unconstitutional,” Breyer wrote for the court’s majority, adding, “They also argue that the minimum essential coverage requirement is not severable from the rest of the act,” meaning the entire law is invalid.
“We do not reach these questions of the act’s validity, however, for Texas and the other plaintiffs in this suit lack the standing necessary to raise them,” he wrote.
Philadelphia city leadership had previously changed policies forbidding foster-care referrals to faith-based worship groups. The far-left Philadelphia government officials had expressed their ‘woke’ advocacy by blocking Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization associated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and foster parents from providing services due to their outlook on traditional marriage.
Two foster parents and CSS sued the city for discrimination alleging the policy violated their first amendment right to their religious belief. Two lower courts ruled against Catholic Social Services, reflecting just how politicized the local and state judiciary has become. However, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with CSS and the parents in a 9-0 ruling [full pdf here], affirming that Philadelphia was factually discriminating against the group based on their religious beliefs.
However, as noted by SCOTUS Blog – […] “the decision fell short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom that the challengers had sought. While the justices unanimously agreed with CSS and the foster parents that the city’s action was unconstitutional, a six-justice majority left intact the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that government actions do not violate the Constitution’s free exercise clause as long as they are neutral and apply to everyone.”