Affordable Care Act (King v. Burwell)
The challenge that the court faced with this decision is whether states had to set up their own insurance exchanges, or whether the federal exchange would suffice. This case is an example of when the Supreme Court gets down into the minutia of a law. The Supreme Court has three basic decisions to make when reviewing a law and needs to rule against it:
- They can strike out a sentence or clause
- They can strike out an entire section
- They can strike down the law in its entirety
With this case, they had to decide if a specific sentence within the law was constitutional. A factor that gets taken into the situation is the benefit or cost to society. Other examples of when they had to consider benefits and costs to society is Reynolds v. United States and Wickard v. Filburn. With this case, they had to decide whether the federal exchange not established in the ACA benefits society, more than costing society, as a whole even though the provision called for states to establish their own exchanges.
Another factor that comes into this case is the justices. First of all, Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered the swing vote of the court. He sides with the conservatives on some issues and with the liberals on the others. You can kind of predict his vote based on what the case is about; if it is about civil rights, he will probably side with the liberals and if the case is about anything else, it will usually be with the conservatives.
The second factor is the Chief Justice of the Court - John Roberts. Roberts is considered a conservative on the court. However, Roberts has been known to side with the liberals of the court in some cases. This happens to be a case where you see him siding with the liberals. Being Chief Justice means that he "runs" the court. He is given leadership over the justices and deference in most cases. However, that also means that he is not always right. He is still entitled to his own opinion just like all the other justices. Justice Roberts is also noted for how he decides in cases. Roberts considers the reputation of the court, he doesn't want to make decisions he thinks will shame the court. Second, Roberts also considers those costs and benefits of a decision. He recognized that more people would benefit from keeping the sentence instead of striking it out and forcing people into a mayhem of health insurance.
In the end, you have a 6-3 decision in favor of the act and keeping the sentence. A problem that Republicans now face is should they accept the ruling and drop the fight against the ACA or should they continue fighting to provide an alternative. Problem is they don't have a planned alternative. They want to repeal the ACA and make insurance privatized and let the market decide, but they have no draft or any other plan to take the U.S back to this method.
Same Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)
This case is one where ideologies prevailed. The split among the decisions of the case (5-4) fell with Justice Kennedy breaking the tie and siding with the liberals for civil rights. To political scientists, like myself, this decision was actually predicted down to the votes. One of the things that caused this decision to be predictable is the vocalization of some of the justices prior to handing down the opinions. For example, Justice Ginsburg performed a homosexual marriage after the arguments for the case were heard, but before opinions were given. As with the previous case of King v. Burwell, Justice Kennedy sided with civil rights.
The reason this case was heard to begin with is one of the federal appellate courts differed from all other appellate courts when hearing the case for homosexual marriage. If this one appellate court would have consented to homosexual marriage, then the Supreme Court would never have even heard the case.
The grounds upon which the case was argued deals with the 14th Amendment's due process of law within the states in comparison with societal norms and traditions. Amicus curiae briefs that were offered also brought into the decision the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion. Amicus curiae briefs or just amicus briefs are essentially letters written to a court from a 3rd party that is not involved in the case itself but has an interest in the results of the case. In the interest of this case, there were many civil rights organizations and religious organizations that wrote amicus briefs asking them to consider the implications of a ruling in either direction.
The concern regarding religious exercise deals with churches that do not endorse gay marriage. Three of the most prominent religions are the Roman Catholic, the LDS church, and the Orthodox Jews. One of the primary concerns in regards to religion is not just their doctrine, but their marriage practices; there is the fear that with the ruling in favor of gay marriage, religions will be required to perform these marriages. Thus the conflict between doctrine and practice.
A different court case that was decided this term by the Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, might prove to be a defense for religions. If you are unfamiliar with this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Inc. saying that because religion was a major part of this company, any business where religion affects that company may be exempt from the ACA clause requiring firms to supply birth control health care to its employees. While this is slightly different in that its religion and a company compared to religion and marriage, it may be possible for churches to avoid forcible performance of marriages.
Another question that arose in regards to religion with Obergefell v. Hodges is polygamy. It is suspected that polygamy may be the next marriage issue to be addressed. The rulings against polygamy, including Reynolds v. United State, still stands, but if the court is willing to overturn anti-sodomy laws and rule in favor of gay marriage, polygamists may have a chance.
In regards to the 14th Amendment in the case, the amendment calls for due process under the law for all citizens. This means that if a citizen from Arizona that got married in New Mexico moves to Oregon, that each of those states will recognize any and all legal and official documents from the other states that this citizen has lived in and received these documents from. You should be able to see the conflict now; if a citizen obtains a marriage license and has a gay marriage performed in a state that allows it, but then moves to a state where it is outlawed, there is a conflict with this due process clause. This could also be said of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.
The other part of the 14th Amendment that applies is the abridgment of privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Is it a privilege of citizens of all sexual orientation to be married to the person of their choosing with their consent? This is another area under the 14th Amendment that citizens for gay marriage cited. Ultimately it came down to protecting the 14th Amendment, which was clearly outlined, or the 1st Amendment and the institution of marriage, which was more of a stretch.
Hopefully these decisions were explained well and clearly for comprehension. If you have any other thoughts or concerns on the matter, leave a comment. I've also included the first section of the 14th Amendment which covers the clauses in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
