Obamacare, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Laws In Play During Supreme Court’s Final Weeks

Obamacare, LGBTQ Rights, Voting Laws In Play During Supreme Court’s Final Weeks

- in Politics

Editor’s note: This story originally published on June 1 and has been updated to reflect the remaining cases left in the term.

(CNN)The Supreme Court is staring at its self-imposed end of June deadline, but with only weeks to go the justices have not yet released some of the most significant opinions of the term, including a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act and a case on religious liberty involving a Philadelphia foster agency.

Recent weeks have seen justices clear their desks of those opinions that produce fewer divisions, as the tension grows for the big-ticket cases.

At the same time, eyes are on any retirement plans of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82. His departure would allow President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats to replace him with a much younger liberal. Justices have often announced their retirements at the end of a term.

Obamacare (again)

Republican-led states — aided by the former Trump administration — are trying to get the court to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, former President Barack Obama’s most significant legislative achievement.

    The case marks the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the 2010 law, although the stakes are heightened given the implications of Covid-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry.

    As things stand, Texas and other Republican-led states are challenging the law and California and other Democratic-led states, the House of Representatives and the Biden administration support the law.

    In one of his first acts as president, Biden informed the court that his government was reversing the position taken by the Trump administration. The Department of Justice now argues that even if the individual mandate is constitutional and that even if the court finds otherwise, it should sever the mandate and allow every other provision to stand.

    Religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and a Philadelphia foster agency

    At issue is a major dispute pitting claims of religious liberty against the LGBTQ community. It comes as the new conservative majority has moved aggressively to protect rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

    In the case heard in early November, Philadelphia froze the contract of a Catholic foster agency because the agency refused to work with same sex couples as potential foster parents. The agency, Catholic Social Services, sued under the First Amendment.

    Philadelphia defended its action, saying the agency violated anti-discrimination laws that are neutral and applicable to everyone.

    Supporters of LGBTQ rights support the city, arguing it was within its rights to freeze the contract to an organization receiving taxpayer funds and turning away same sex couples. They fear that a decision in favor of CSS would clear the way for religious organizations to get exemptions from non-discrimination laws in other contexts.

    Supporters of expanding religious liberty rights hope the court’s conservative majority, expanding upon a trend from last term, will continue to hold the government to a higher standard when it comes to regulations that impact religious believers.

    Arizona voting rights law

    The Supreme Court is considering two provisions of Arizona law that the Democratic National Committee says violate the historic Voting Rights Act that prohibits laws that result in racial discrimination.

    One part of the state law requires that in-person Election Day voters cast their votes in their assigned precinct. Another provision says that only certain persons — family, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials — may deliver another person’s completed ballot to the polling place.

    Eight years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, effectively gutting Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain the permission of the federal government or the courts before enacting new laws related to voting.

    Since that decision, challengers to voting restrictions have increasingly turned to Section 2 of the law, that holds that no voting regulation can be imposed that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Democrats fear the new conservative majority on the court will now weaken Section 2.

    The case comes as Republican state legislators across the country are also moving at a fast clip to pass laws to restrict voting access.

    Fourth Amendment: Warrants when in ‘hot pursuit’

    The justices are considering a case about when a police officer needs a warrant to enter the sanctity of an individual’s home. In general, in such circumstances a warrant is required, although the Supreme Court has held that under certain exigent circumstances, a warrant is not required.

    If, for example, an officer is in “hot pursuit” of a driver or if emergency aid is needed a warrant is not always necessary.

    The case at hand explores whether a categorical exception to a warrant holds up if the officer thinks the person he is following in “hot pursuit” committed a less serious offense: a misdemeanor. It’s the first time the justices have looked at the scope of the “hot pursuit” doctrine when it comes to a minor violation.

    NCAA amateur rules

    The case offe

    Source Title:
    Obamacare, LGBTQ rights, voting laws in play during Supreme Court’s final weeks

    Go To The SourceRead More

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may also like

    READ: DOJ Says It Will Not Investigate Covid-19 Nursing Home Deaths In New York, Pennsylvania And Michigan

    By CNN Updated 12:13 PM ET, Sat July