JUDY WOODRUFF: The U.S. Supreme Court is wrapping up the final week of its session and today
revisited the dispute over coverage of women's access to birth control under the Affordable
Care Act.
As John Yang reports, it's familiar ground for the justices.
JOHN YANG: Judy, this was the third time the court considered the question of whether some
employers could opt out of the birth control coverage because of their beliefs.
Marcia Coyle is the chief Washington correspondent for "The National Law Journal."
Marcia, what did the court decide in this case today?
MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": John, the court, in a 7-2 ruling written by
Just Clarence Thomas, decided that the Trump administration had legal authority to issue
rules, new rules -- actually, they date back to 2017 -- that expanded an exemption for
religious groups from the birth control coverage requirement.
The expanded rules would allow religious objections, as well as moral on objections, and would
cover just about every nongovernmental employer in the United States, allowing them to opt
out of that coverage as well.
JOHN YANG: So, in this final two weeks, we now know is the final two weeks of this court's
term, they have had three decisions dealing with religious freedom, this one today on
birth control coverage, another one today, in which they said essentially that church-run
schools don't have to worry about anti-discrimination claims when they deal with teachers who teach
their faith.
And then, last week, a decision in which they said that Montana could not exclude a school
from a scholarship program simply because that school was church-run.
So, what does this tell us? Take these three things, three decisions, cases together. What
does this tell us about where this court is on the question of religious freedom?
MARCIA COYLE: John, I think it's a continuation of a trend in the Roberts court since at least
2005, when Chief Justice John Roberts took the middle seat on the bench.
The court appears, in most of its decisions, to favor those who are claiming religious
discrimination either by a state statute, like last week's decision, or a state constitution,
like last week's decision in Montana, or, as the Little Sisters of the Poor case here
involving the accommodation for religious and moral objections.
So, again, it's a continuation of a trend. And if the person bringing the case is claiming
in particular that his or her free exercise of religion under the First Amendment is being
violated, the court appears to be favoring those claims with a very strong belief in
the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
JOHN YANG: A little personnel and medical call note. We learned that Chief Justice John
Roberts, two-and-a-half weeks ago, was taken to the hospital after falling and cutting
his head.
We -- this court only announced this because The Washington Post asked them, after they
got a tip about this. What do you make of this?
MARCIA COYLE: It looks as though at least the court said that the chief justice was
suffering from dehydration, and he became dizzy, and that's how he fell.
I should say, too, that, in 1993, I believe, and 2007, he suffered benign ischemic strokes,
which means there really was no reason for -- or seizures, not strokes, seizures -- that
also caused him to fall and -- pass out and fall.
So, we have to take the court at its word. And, certainly, the court was relaying whatever
the chief justice said was the cause of the problem.
But it is unfortunate that it takes a tip to a newspaper, which then has to go to the
court's information office, to find out something as important as a justice going to the hospital.
JOHN YANG: Marcia Coyle of "The National Law Journal," thanks so much.
MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, John.