Have the legal right to challenge the law. Moments ago former president obama tweeted out a statement that reads, today the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care act again. This ruling reaffirms what we have long known to be true, the Affordable Care act is here to say. The principle of universal coverage has been established and 31 Million People now have access to care through the law we passed with millions more who can no longer be denied coverage or charge more because of a preexisting condition. Also decided today, a local religious freedom case. Justices ruled in favorite of Catholic Foster Care Agency in philadelphia that refused to consider samesex couples as foster parents. Joining us to talk about this, cnn justice correspondent Jessica Schneider and White House Correspondent jeremy diamond. Jessica, on the obama care decision, what more do we know about how the decision was made . These seven justices essentially ruled on procedural grounds without getting to the heart o
Have the legal right to challenge the law. Moments ago former president obama tweeted out a statement that reads, today the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care act again. This ruling reaffirms what we have long known to be true, the Affordable Care act is here to say. The principle of universal coverage has been established and 31 Million People now have access to care through the law we passed with millions more who can no longer be denied coverage or charge more because of a preexisting condition. Also decided today, a local religious freedom case. Justices ruled in favorite of Catholic Foster Care Agency in philadelphia that refused to consider samesex couples as foster parents. Joining us to talk about this, cnn justice correspondent Jessica Schneider and White House Correspondent jeremy diamond. Jessica, on the obama care decision, what more do we know about how the decision was made . These seven justices essentially ruled on procedural grounds without getting to the heart o
Attention to where the court is sitting god save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments this morning case number 19123 fulton versus city of philadelphia. Mr. Chief justice and mia please the court, and failing to understand where the controls and where it doesnt smith it doesnt control when the government uses a system ofndividualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptns to undermine the rule or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice philadelphia made all three of those errors here. U can identify and apicable law even after six tempts and our kwledge is the decisions are subjective d individualized. The courts bel said smith would be a dead letter if petitioners prevailed and respondents asked the cou for a newly minted constitutional standard that approach has no basis in the traditions of the free exercise clause. The city has no compelling reason that is exercised by harris children in philadelphia for two centuries nor does it
Fulton versus city of philadelphia. The honorable chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oye, oye, oye. All persons having business honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to get their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. Roberts we will hear argument this morning in case number 19120 three, fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. The courts below made a civil error. They fail to understand where smith controls and where does not. Smith does not control where a government uses individual exemptions or makes other exceptions that undermine rules or when it changes rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three errors here. The city cannot identify a neutral, generally applicable law after six attempt. Attempts. It now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the cou
Morning and case number 19123, fulton v. The city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. The courts below made a simple error. They failed to understand where Employment Division versus smith controls and what doesnt. Smith doesnt control when the government uses a system of individualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptions that undermined its rules or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three of those errors here. The city still cant identify a neutral, generally applicable attempts. Fter six it now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the courts below still applied smith. Even set Smith Wouldve be a dead letter if petitioners prevail. That. That demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has caused. Respondents, rather than defend smith, asked the court for new limited constitutional standard thats even less protective of religious exercise. That approach