Supreme Court hears case on 'Obamacare' birth control coverage changes


The Supreme Court appears divided over trump's rollback of contraceptive coverage under obamacare and the court considers a challenge to the ban on robo calls this a bream quartered oral arguments today over the trump administration's giving employees in universities abroad religious opt out from the obamacare requirement that they offer free birth control coverage through their health plans from the first question Chief Justice John Roberts the possible pivotal vote suggested the administration had gone too far but being a refer exemption reaches far beyond that in other words not everybody who seeks the protection from coverage has those same objections so I wonder if and your reliance on refresh is too broad to use Richard Garnett a professor at the university of Notre Dame law school explained the issue here the real issue what the fun part of the P. the real issue in this case is probably not what a lot of people think it is a much a layer so one question will meet me decide to step back the issue here is whether the administrative agency and questioned HHS has the authority to create the accommodation that it created a lot of help of what the issue was not the issue is not whether the constitution requires that the combination it's not whether the religious freedom restoration act requires this accommodation it's really a question of administrative law did the agency create accommodation in the correct way and what the acting within its authority when it did during the oral argument hi I thought that the some of the justices seem to be talking about trying to re litigate questions that I I don't really think are the ones that are presented unification people could be about whether the contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether the hobby lobby case was correctly decided you know what what happened here the the federal agency determined to change its own rules and then some state the card is that because he didn't like that changing the rules they were going to say that they lack the power to change them and I act that the court is not going to agree with that claim some other additional fun kind of log geek technical question like the federal District Court have the power to issue a nationwide injunction on a policy or does it have the power only issue an injunction within its jurisdiction and do they have what's called standing to challenge changes to federal regulations we because they predicted those changes will result in some cost to them I'm a law professor or you know log each perspective and all kinds of things falling around in this case but it's not really about whether or not one believes that contraception coverage mandate is a good idea or whether one believes that the hobby lobby case was rightly divided some of the justices seem to be talking to a broader audience perhaps and yeah justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who by the way was participating from the Johns Hopkins hospital after undergoing gallbladder treatment yesterday she kept coming back to the cost of exemptions to women saying that this would be tossing to the winds Congress's intent that women have seamless and no cost coverage yes the popping to the wind damage I think three different times that might be a good example of what I'm talking about I mean it's clear that doesn't convert think that the change in regulations that the HHS adopted are are are bad policy but you know the question of what Congress's intent was that is I think a little more complicated I mean after all the portable character self didn't contain a contraception coverage mandate that was created by the administrative agencies have now decided to re craft the accommodation in the agency is changing it you don't roll the clock going against what Congress actually Anderman exemption from the coverage mandate from the very beginning that it is never been a blanket requirement there always been employers who are exempt in a balancing act so I think the claim that the latest regulations are a dramatic departure from what Congress did it difficult to maintain the better complaint it seems to me you know the kind of administrative law complaint that the agency crafted the new accommodation in a way that might not have followed the strict requirements for notice and comment on the outside complication and so on but it came time to in which state that so long as the agency does get that input at some point it's permissible but you were I think you're exactly right to pick up on the fact that we just didn't Berg was speaking to a larger audience about the broader policy question but I don't really think that broader policy questions the legal question before the court in this particular

Coming up next