What has the Supreme Court ruled on?
The Supreme Court finishes up its session this month. Here is what you need to know about the key rulings. WASHINGTON  This week the Supreme Court issued two big rulings. The first headline-grabber was that it upheld the Affordable Care Act. The second unanimously sided with the rights of a religious organization over a policy for same-sex couples. Our experts said both of these rulings were pretty much expected and that is why both were near-unanimous decisions. Our Sources:  Robert Peck, a lawyer from the Center for Constitutional Litigation. Constitutional law professor, Dr. Mark Graber from the University of Marylands Carey Law School. California v. Texas  This was the Affordable Care Act case. The attorneys general from more than a dozen Republican-majority states wanted to strike the law down based on a legal idea called severability.  When it was written the Affordable Care Act had a penalty for not paying health insurance. In 2017, a Republican-majority Congress removed that penalty. Scholars said it weakened the law. Which led to the Republican states arguing, without the penalty the entire ACA is no longer Constitutional because it is not severable from the penalty. However, our experts said the Republican states missed a key point. They did not present an injured party or penalty in their case. Texas, and individual plaintiffs didnt have anyone suffering any penalty because there's no tax, there's zero, Robert Peck said. As a result, no injury and no ability for the courts under Article Three of the Constitution to adjudicate this matter.  Ruling: 7 to 2 to uphold ACA on the basis that the Republican states had no injured party and therefore no standing. Fulton v. Philadelphia  The city of Philadelphia had a contract with Catholic Social Services for foster homes. The Catholic organization does not certify same-sex couples to foster children. The organization claims it is against their religious views. This organizational policy was against the citys policy to not discriminate. Philadelphia stopped sending children to the organization. However, it was discovered the city does allow other exemptions for some organizations involved in the foster care. The courts said, Aha! There is an exemption provision, said Dr. Mark Graber Once you allow exemptions, you must allow exemptions for the religious believer.  In this case, the court ruled unanimously in favor of the Catholic Social Services. On the basis that contracts with city do allow for exemptions. Therefore, it appeared that Philadelphia violated Catholic Social Services First Amendment right.