Watch oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case in four minutes of video!
That’s right, folks. It’s right here.
Turns out Alito isn’t the only justice who conflates the Securities Exchange Act with state-law corporate-structure statutes. Roberts does, too! (Unless, that is, racial-minority-owned corporations are denied access to restaurants and hotels when traveling. Or something.)
Roberts suggested that he believes Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can bring forth claims of religious freedom, saying courts have held that “corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations” and that “those cases involve construction of the term ‘person.’” — John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma, Sahil Kapur, TPM, […]
My early take on the ACA-contraception-mandate-case argument: Alito conflates the Securities Exchange Act with state-law corporate-structure statutes (yikes); Kennedy really, really wants to give corporations the full complement of human constitutional rights; and Scalia really, really needs to limit this ruling to an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
When [U.S. Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli said the Court has never found a right to exercise religion for corporations, Alito wondered if there was something wrong with the corporate form that it would not be accorded religion freedom rights. Did Verrilli agree, Alito said, with a lower court’s view that the only reason for a […]
The OTHER big ACA case being argued today (albeit not at the Supreme Court) concerns the statute’s alleged Disestablishment Clause
Obamacare faces two separate court challenges on Tuesday, but only one could deliver a major knockout blow to the law. The case getting the most attention is tomorrow’s Supreme Court challenge to the health care law’s requirement for employers to provide birth control to their workers. At the same time Tuesday morning, the District of […]
What to look for in tomorrow’s Supreme Court arguments in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood ACA-contraception-coverage cases
[The] conception of corporate personhood has profound and beneficial economic consequences. It means that the obligations the law imposes on the corporation, such as liability for harms caused by the firm’s operations, are not generally extended to the shareholders. Limited liability protects the owners’ personal assets, which ordinarily can’t be taken to pay the debts […]
What the Marvin M. Brandt Case Means for America’s Rail-Trails
I’m a big fan of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, and was well aware of the Supreme Court case, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, argued two months ago at the Supreme Court, that had the potential to endanger or end large swaths of Conservancy trails. The Court issued its opinion in the case last […]
Bobby Jindal Picks His Passion: Lieutenant Governors Should File Frivolous Lawsuits (Ostensibly) On Behalf of States
LOUISIANA SUING MOVEON FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: In a move that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the liberal group’s billboard and TV ad criticize Gov. Bobby Jindal’s decision to turn down the expansion of Medicaid, leaving tens of thousands of Louisianans without health insurance, the state says its lawsuit is […]
Why Are So Many Americans Confused About Obamacare? How a Video Produced by CBS’ Washington Bureau Misled Millions –Part 1 Updated
run75441: I have been out and about to Thailand and China again so I have had not had a lot of time to contribute. Just reading the many comments on Robert Waldman and Beverly Mann’s well written articles gives a snapshot of how many people do not understand the PPACA and really do not care […]
Basic v. Levinson
From the New York Times According to the plaintiffs in the new case, the Supreme Court has not overruled a statutory precedent in an area in which Congress has been active since 1961, in a tax case. But lawyers for the defendants said the 1988 decision was entitled to “lessened precedential weight” because it was […]
The Supreme Court and Politics–Especially the current conservative majority’s appropriation of the First Amendment in the service of Republican Party electoral victories
Dan Crawford emailed me this morning with a link to Linda Greenhouse’s op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “Law and Politics,” and asked me to post about it. A more apt title for the op-ed, which a headline writer rather than Greenhouse (whose bailiwick is the Supreme Court) titled, would be “The Supreme Court […]