SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Religious rights trump birthcontrol rule By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptives requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law. The justices' 5-4 decision on Monday, splitting conservatives and liberals, means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under the health insurance plans of objecting companies. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, over a dissent from the four liberal justices, that forcing companies to pay for methods of women's contraception to which they object violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He said the ruling is limited and there are ways for the administration to ensure women get the birth control they want. But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the decision creates health risks for women, and he said Congress should take action to make sure they get coverage. "President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them," Earnest said. "Today's decision jeopardizes the health of the women who are employed by these companies." Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that Obama signed in 2010 in what is considered the major success of his first term. Nearly 30 million women receive birth control as a result of the health law, the government has said. Benefits experts say they expect little impact from the ruling because employers use health benefits to recruit and retain workers. But one constitutional law scholar, Marci Hamilton of Yeshiva University, cautioned that more than 80 percent of U.S. corporations are closely held and she said they could "now be able to discriminate against their employees." Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal Supreme Court vote that saved the law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election. On Monday, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety, holding in favor of the religious rights of closely held corporations, like the Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores that challenged the contraceptives provision. Hobby Lobby is among roughly 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like the two involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. But Monday's ruling would apply more broadly to other companies that do not want to pay for any of the 20 birth control methods and devices that have been approved by federal regulators. Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," he said. He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, creating a buffer, their insurer or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. The employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it. Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law. That accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, and the court said Monday that profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administration can solve its problem easily. "The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it," Kennedy said. He said that arrangement "does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs." Kennedy is considered the swing vote on the nine-member court that is evenly divided between conservative and liberal justices. Houses of worship and other religious institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith are exempt from the requirement to offer birth control. In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt-outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said. Leaders of women's rights groups blasted the decision by "five male justices," in the words of Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government's supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000. The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it. Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. Hobby Lobby is owned by the family of David Green, who are evangelical Christians. The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pennsylvania, owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets. -------- Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jessica Gresko and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report. Public unioncannot makenonmembers pay By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union's costs of collective bargaining. In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take. The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their bank accounts in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don't have to share the burden of union costs. But the narrow ruling was limited to "partial-public employees" and stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions of teachers, firefighters and other government workers to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers "are different from full-fledged public employees" because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers. The case involves about 26,000 Illinois workers who provide home care for disabled people and are paid with Medicaid funds administered by the state. In 2003, the state passed a measure deeming the workers state employees eligible for collective bargaining. A majority of the workers then selected the Service Employees International Union to negotiate with the state to increase wages, improve health benefits and set up training programs. Those workers who chose not to join the union had to pay proportional "fair share" fees to cover collective bargaining and other administration costs. A group of workers led by Pamela Harris - a home health aide who cares for her disabled son at home - filed a lawsuit arguing the fees violate the First Amendment. Backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the workers said it wasn't fair to make someone pay fees to a group that takes positions the fee-payer disagrees with. The workers argue they are not different from typical government employees because they work in people's homes, not on government property, and are not supervised by other state employees. And they say the union is not merely seeking higher wages, but making a political push for expansion of Medicaid payments. Alito agreed, saying "it is impossible to argue that the level of Medicaid funding (or, for that matter, state spending for employee benefits in general) is not a matter of great public concern." The workers had urged the justices to go even farther and overturn a 1977 Supreme Court decision which held that public employees who choose not to join a union can still be required to pay representation fees, as long as those fees don't go toward political purposes. Alito said the court was not overturning that case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which is confined "to full-fledged state employees." But he said that extending Abood to include "partial-public employees, quasi-public employees, or simply private employees would invite problems." About half of the states require these fair-share fees. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the four liberal justices. Kagan said the majority's decision to leave the older case in place is "cause for satisfaction, though hardly applause." Kagan agreed with the state's arguments that home care workers should be treated the same as other public workers because Illinois sets their salaries, resolves disputes over pay, conducts performance reviews and enforces the terms of employment contracts. "Our decisions have long afforded government entities broad latitude to manage their workforces, even when that affects speech they could not regulate in other contexts," Kagan said. Harris issued a statement through the National Right to Work Foundation praising the decision. "Families in Illinois can relax knowing their homes are safe from being a union workplace and there will be no third party intruding into the care we provide our disabled sons and daughters," Harris said. A federal district court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected her lawsuit, citing the high court's precedent. The Supreme Court's limited ruling means public unions avoided a potentially devastating blow that could have meant a major drop in public employee membership ranks. Mary Kay Henry, president of the SEIU, said her union would work with Illinois officials to create a new model for "working together to create good jobs and improve the quality of care that we deliver to seniors and the disabled." Henry said it was not clear how the decision would affect home care union models in other states, where the union represents 400,000 caregivers. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling would make it harder for home care workers "to get a fair shake in exchange for their hard work" and make it tougher for states and cities "to ensure the elderly and Americans with disabilities get the care they need and deserve." At least nine other states have allowed home care workers to join unions: California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Court rejectschallenge to gay therapy ban WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to California's law that bars mental counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight. The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state's ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason. Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law along with other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm. Justices turn down dispute over fuel standard WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to California's first-in-America mandate requiring fuel producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The justices on Monday turned away appeals from fuel makers that say the law discriminates against out-of-state producers. The mandate requires petroleum refiners and fuel distributors to make cleaner-burning fuels for the California market. Out-of-state oil refiners and ethanol companies say the law provides an unfair advantage to in-state producers by giving a higher "carbon-intensity score" to fuels transported from other states. The state says the law simply offers incentives for companies that make cleaner-burning fuels. A U.S. district judge agreed with the challengers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, saying the law gives all fuel makers options to get their product to market. Court won't weigh claims vs. bin Laden kin WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court says lawsuits by victims' families and survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks can proceed, but without relatives of Osama bin Laden and businesses that allegedly supported al-Qaida before the terrorist attacks as defendants. The justices declined Monday to review a lower court ruling that dismissed claims against 25 defendants. The lawsuits were filed by more than 3,000 Sept 11 survivors, relatives, victims' representatives and insurance carriers. Among the defendants are al-Qaida, its members and associates, along with charities, banks, terrorist organizations and financiers. Among those dismissed were four bin Laden relatives who purportedly managed the Saudi Binladin Group, one of the largest engineering and construction companies in the Arab world and a successor to a company founded by bin Laden's father, and the company itself. Arab Bank'splea in terrorism lawsuits rejected WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to lift sanctions imposed by a judge on Arab Bank, PLC in lawsuits seeking to hold the bank partially responsible for terrorist acts in the Middle East. The high court let stand a lower court ruling penalizing the Jordan-based bank for not turning over financial records. Survivors and relatives of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza between 1995 and 2004 claim in lawsuits that the institution supported terror groups by providing financial services to them. The bank said turning over the records would break the law in other countries. But a judge imposed sanctions that would make it easier for the plaintiffs to prove their case and recover treble damages. The case is Arab Bank v. Linde. Google appealin snoopingcase denied WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Google's appeal of a ruling that it pried into people's online lives through their Wi-Fi systems as part of its drive to collect information for its Street View mapping project. The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place a ruling that Google employees violated the federal wiretap law when they rolled through residential streets with car cameras to shoot photos for Street View. The federal appeals court in San Francisco said the information picked up from unencrypted Wi-Fi signals included emails, usernames, passwords, images and documents. Google had argued that it did not run afoul of the wiretap law because data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network is a radio communication that is readily accessible to the public. Justices stay out of Mt. Soledad cross dispute WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the long-running dispute over a war memorial cross in San Diego before a federal appeals court has its say. Supporters of the 43-foot monument atop Mount Soledad wanted skip the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court because the legal fight has been going on for 25 years. The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association said the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been hostile to the cross in earlier rulings. The Obama administration disagrees with a lower court order for the cross to be removed, but said the case should go to the appeals court first. The justices did not comment Monday in rejecting the association's appeal. The case is Mt. Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, 13-1061. Madoff trusteenot allowed tosue banks WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court will not let the trustee working to recover money for Bernard Madoff's investors sue major financial institutions for their role in Madoff's massive fraud. The court refused Monday to hear an appeal from trustee Irving Picard, who wants to pursue tens of billions of dollars from UBS AG, HSBC Bank PLC and other institutions. Picard, as trustee for the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, has brought claims in bankruptcy court alleging that the institutions were complicit in Madoff's vast pyramid scheme because they provided him with financial services while ignoring obvious signs he was a con artist. A federal appeals court ruled that Picard doesn't have legal standing to make claims against the financial institutions that Madoff's burned customers could make themselves. Justices turn down California oyster farm WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from a popular oyster farm in Northern California that is facing closure. The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place lower court rulings against Drakes Bay Oyster Co. The company operates in the Point Reyes National Seashore. Then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined to renew its lease when it expired in 2012. Salazar said the waters of Drakes Estero should be returned to wilderness status. Lower courts have allowed the oyster farm to keep operating while the case was pending. The case is Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 13-1244. Published: Wed, Jul 02, 2014