Chief Justice Roberts, And Likely Swing Vote, Questions Whether Contraception Exemption Is ‘Too Broad’
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments -- over the phone -- in a case to determine whether the changes made by the Trump administration to the health law's contraception mandate are allowed to stand. The justices appeared deeply divided along the usual lines on Wednesday. Meanwhile President Donald Trump reiterated his desire for the Supreme Court to overturn the health law even in the midst of a combined pandemic and recession.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Divided Over Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday about whether the Trump administration may allow employers with religious or moral objections to deny women free birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The case returned the court to a key battle in the culture wars, one entering its second decade and one in which successive administrations have switched sides. According to government estimates, about 70,000 to 126,000 women would lose contraceptive coverage from their employers if the Trump administration prevails. (Liptak, 5/6)
The Associated Press:
Justices Wary Of 'Obamacare' Birth Control Coverage Changes
The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices suggested they were troubled by the changes, which the government has estimated would cause about 70,000 women, and at most 126,000 women, to lose contraception coverage in one year. Chief Justice John Roberts, a key vote on a court split between conservatives and liberals, suggested that the Trump administration’s reliance on a federal religious freedom law to expand the exemption was “too broad.” (Gresko and Sherman, 5/6)
Reuters:
U.S. Supreme Court Wrestles With Obamacare Contraception Case
Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer appeared to favor a similar approach. “I don’t understand why this can’t be worked out,” Breyer said. The contraceptive mandate under the law, which was signed by Obama in 2010 and has faced Republican efforts to repeal it ever since, requires that employer-provided health insurance include coverage for birth control with no co-payment. Previously, many employer-provided insurance policies did not offer this coverage. (Hurley, 5/6)
Politico:
Supreme Court Questions Trump's Rollback Of Birth Control Coverage
Wednesday's oral arguments, conducted by conference call, marked the high court’s third review of the contentious coverage requirement, and its first since Trump judicial picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench. At issue was a Trump policy allowing virtually any employer to claim a religious or moral exemption to providing free birth control to women. (Luthi, 5/6)
The Washington Post:
Trump Vows To End Obamacare At Supreme Court Despite Pandemic
President Trump said Wednesday he will continue trying to toss out all of the Affordable Care Act, even as some in his administration, including Attorney General William P. Barr, have privately argued parts of the law should be preserved amid a pandemic. “We want to terminate health care under Obamacare,” Trump told reporters Wednesday, the last day for his administration to change its position in a Supreme Court case challenging the law. “Obamacare, we run it really well. . . . But running it great, it’s still lousy health care.” (Barrett, 5/6)
Vox:
Trump Moves To Get Rid Of The Affordable Care Act Amid Coronavirus
Wednesday was the deadline for the Department of Justice to file a brief in the case, which will be heard by the US Supreme Court this October. DOJ’s brief agrees with the litigants and asks the Court to rule the entire law unconstitutional — instead of a more narrow request that the Court throw out only the law’s preexisting conditions as the Trump administration had asked for at one point in 2018. (Burns, 5/6)
Politico:
Trump Will Urge Supreme Court To Strike Down Obamacare
House Democrats in a filing to the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the pandemic showcased why justices should preserve the law. “Although Congress may not have enacted the ACA with the specific purpose of combatting a pandemic, the nation’s current public-health emergency has made it impossible to deny that broad access to affordable health care is not just a life-or death matter for millions of Americans, but an indispensable precondition to the social intercourse on which our security, welfare, and liberty ultimately depend,” their brief read. (Luthi, 5/6)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Split Over Religious Exemptions For Birth-Control Coverage
The administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Noel Francisco, said most employers still would have to provide contraception coverage “but not the small number who have sincere conscientious objections.” He said that between 75,000 and 125,000 women would lose coverage based on their employers’ religious or moral positions. The states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey brought the legal challenge, arguing the exemption swept far beyond the government’s obligation to accommodate religious objections to federal law and improperly denied preventive health-care coverage to women. Lower courts in Philadelphia agreed and barred implementation of the Trump administration regulations, prompting the government’s appeal. (Kendall and Bravin, 5/6)
