It has accepted a challenge to the inclusion of contraception coverage in insurance plans based on religious objections.
The Supreme Court has agreed to referee another dispute over President Barack Obama’s health care law, whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement to cover birth control for employees.
The justices said Tuesday they will take up an issue that has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.
The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.
The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company’s claims.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Though I pose as an expert in class, I'm really not - but it seems to me the court is going to hear the case because of the split rulings by the lower courts.
From Scotusblog:
Taking on a new constitutional dispute over the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear challenges to the requirement that employers must provide health insurance for their workers that includes birth control and related medical services. The Court said it would decide constitutional issues, as well as claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Court granted review of a government case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 13-354) and a private business case (Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 13-356). Taking the Conestoga plea brought before the Court the claim that both religious owners of a business and the business itself have religious freedom rights. The Hobby Lobby case was keyed to rights under RFRA.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia page on RFRA. In 2305 we discussed this law in the section on religious liberty. It was passed after the court ruled against the peyote using members of an Oregon tribe who were fired from the drug rehab jobs.
The court has ruled on issues related to RFRA previously:
It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized.
