Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg heard oral arguments from her hospital bed as the Supreme Court conducted its third day of oral arguments via telephone.
The liberal associate justice, nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993, heard arguments from Johns Hopkins Hospital on Wednesday after being hospitalized for a “benign gallbladder condition” the day before. She is “resting comfortably” while she recovers for a few days.
Ginsburg, 87, has battled a series of illnesses as a Supreme Court justice but has maintained her judicial duties. In September 2019, she had a malignant tumor removed. In 1999 and 2009, she was treated for colon cancer and pancreatic cancer, respectively.
On Wednesday, the high court concluded oral arguments for the week by listening to two cases, one dealing with religious liberty and the other dealing with First Amendment protections of telemarketers.
First, the Supreme Court heard arguments pertaining to Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which examines if the federal government has lawfully exempted religious objectors from providing their employees health insurance that includes contraceptives.
In 2014’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 constitutionally protects religious objectors from providing health coverage for contraception to their employees as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the wind entirely Congress’s instruction that women need, and shall have, seamless, no-cost comprehensive coverage,” Ginsburg notably said during her lengthy questions to attorneys.
Conservative Associate Justice Clarence Thomas also spoke repeatedly to ask questions of attorneys, breaking his tradition of remaining silent during oral arguments for the third day in a row.
Additionally, the high court heard arguments relating to Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., which centers on whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a statute limiting automated calls, violates the First Amendment. The challenge posed to the law, however, is specifically aimed at an amendment Congress passed in 2015.
On April 13, the Supreme Court said it would hear arguments for cases involving President Trump’s financial records and the Electoral College amid widespread shutdowns around the country in adherence to social distancing guidelines designed to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The court will listen to arguments for these high-profile cases next week.
Two cases going forward, Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, pertain to subpoenas issued by the district attorney of New York County and the House Oversight Committee for Trump’s financial records.
Chiafalo v. Washington examines a law from Washington state that requires electors to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the popular vote. In 2016, some electors cast their vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell for president and were subsequently fined $1,000 by the Washington secretary of state. The Supreme Court will examine whether or not the law violates the electors’ First Amendment rights.
