Search  |  Login  |  Register

HHS Mandate: Which Case(s) to Decide?

By Geoffrey Surtees1384980807000

Next Tuesday, November 26, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will confer about a number of cert petitions that have been briefed and filed with the Court over the past few months.  (A cert petition, formally called a “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” is a request that the Supreme Court review the decision of a lower court.)

Among the petitions the Court will confer about next week are three that directly involve the HHS Mandate (the government edict that non-exempt employers provide abortifacient drugs and contraceptives in health plans, regardless of whether they have a religious objection to doing so, or pay ruinous penalties): Hobby Lobby, Autocam, and Conestoga Wood Specialties.  (The ACLJ filed amicus briefs in support of Hobby Lobby and Autocam in the courts of appeal, and filed an amicus brief in support of Autocam’s cert petition on behalf of twenty-one family business owners.)

There are a number of decisions the Court could make next Tuesday regarding these petitions: (1) it can deny all three petitions and let the decisions of the lower courts stand (hardly likely); (2) it can decide to grant one or more of the petitions; (3) it can wait to decide pending further deliberation; or (4) wait to decide until other petitions involving the HHS Mandate (including one filed by the ACLJ) have been fully briefed.

No matter when the Court rules on these petitions, there is little doubt that it will ultimately grant at least one of them.

One of the most important factors the Court uses to decide whether to grant a cert petition is whether lower courts are divided over an issue of great legal importance.

In the case of the HHS Mandate litigation (which currently adds up to over 40 cases involving challenges brought by for-profit employers), the lower courts are very much divided on whose religious exercise, if anyone’s, is substantially burdened by the Mandate: 

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in Gilardi (an ACLJ case) that religious owners are substantially burdened by the Mandate, but not their businesses.

The Third Circuit held in Conestoga Wood that the Mandate doesn’t substantially burden the owners or their business.

The Sixth Circuit (like the Third Circuit) held in Autocam that that neither the owners nor the businesses are burdened by the Mandate.

The Seventh Circuit (unlike any other court of appeals to rule so far), held in Korte (another ACLJ case) that the Mandate substantially burdens both the religious owners and their business.

The Tenth Circuit held in Hobby Lobby that the Mandate burdens the corporation but did not decide whether the Mandate burdens the owners.

Sound confusing?  Well, it is.  And this is why few doubt that the Supreme Court will decide, perhaps next week, to intervene in at least one of these cases.

As we pointed out in the Gilardi cert petition filed with the Supreme Court earlier this month:

Clearly, the lower courts are at odds with one another as to who has standing to challenge the Mandate, whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by the Mandate, and whether a secular or for-profit corporation has any religious exercise rights at all.  Given these conflicting decisions, and the fact that the Mandate impacts the exercise of a fundamental liberty protected by the First Amendment, there cannot be a more compelling case or controversy warranting this Court’s intervention.

No matter when the Supreme Court makes its decision, either next week or in the weeks soon after, we’ll let you know when that decision comes down.

Latest in
ObamaCare

Any Wonder ObamaCare Funds Abortion?

By Matthew Clark1418398462910

After his “glib” apology before Congress this week for calling the American people “stupid,” ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber attempted to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and … dodge every substantive question that came his way. He refused to answer even the simplest questions like how much ( millions )

read more

Abortion Distortion in Obamacare

By Nathanael Bennett1417634863942

From day one, we have warned that the real danger of Obamacare is not in the 2,700 pages of its text (as bad as they are), but in the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that would flow out of that text. This week provides yet another example of that danger, and it is in the...

read more

Stimulus & ObamaCare “A Mistake”

By Matthew Clark1417020813934

Yesterday, liberal Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer lambasted Democrats for the political failure of both ObamaCare and the stimulus. While he certainly has not changed his core belief that government can solve all the people’s ills (and said as much), he slammed his party for its political failures.

read more

Obama Admin Grubered Americans

By Matthew Clark1416595737305

The lesson we learn from Jonathan Gruber (the MIT professor turned high-paid ObamaCare architect who admitted the Administration deceived the public to pass ObamaCare) is that the Obama Administration will do or say anything to prop up ObamaCare. You know the litany of lies (you can keep you plan,

read more