Amid the anguish over the Hobby Lobby ruling Monday was a note of optimism among some liberals, suggesting that the ruling was constructed with a narrowness that specifically prohibits use of its legal reasoning to protect religiously inspired discrimination against LGBT people. If only that was in fact the case.
The Hobby Lobby decision is an affront to all women and yet another barrier to Asian American and Pacific Islander women who already face significant health disparities and barriers to insurance access.
In a series of orders issued Tuesday, the Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings upholding religious objections to providing any contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The decision did not strike the contraceptive benefit in the Affordable Care Act entirely, but it did leave it hobbled.
In striking a Massachusetts buffer zone law, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically reframed the debate over balancing the rights of patients and providers with the rights of abortion protesters.
According to the Roberts Court, Massachusetts had not shown that it tried to address clinic protests in a less restrictive means than enacting a fixed 35-foot buffer zone.
On Monday, the Roberts Court denied a request by attorneys for the state to let a requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital go into effect.
The high court hasn’t yet ruled on buffer zones or Hobby Lobby, but it did say a legal challenge to an Ohio elections law can proceed.
The report from the Alliance for Justice notes that while there is still much to do to remedy the judicial vacancy crisis in the federal courts, reforms in the Senate have brought signs of change.
The Supreme Court has announced it will take up a case involving Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man convicted in 2010 under federal law for posting a series of threatening messages on his Facebook page.