Oral arguments in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v Sebelius are set for March 25.
As reported by SCOTUSblog, oral arguments in the two Obamacare cases have been consolidated and will be heard on March 25.
In Sebelius v Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration is suing to impose a large fine on Hobby Lobby if its management elects not to violate religious principles by providing sterilization and contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby argues this violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
In Conestoga, the corporation is suing the government, also claiming the Obamacare mandate breaks the law as written in the RFRA. Additionally, Conestoga makes a Constitutional argument. Specifically, that the Obamacare HHS mandate violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Who will be arguing
According to a press release by The Becket Fund, Paul Clement of Bancroft LLP will be making the oral arguments for Hobby Lobby. The Examiner has not been able to ascertain who will be arguing for Conestoga.
Legal challenges, structural problems and implementation errors are creating uncertainty
The legal challenges are adding to the uncertainty created by the implementation failures of the Obamacare website. Structural problems caused age band compression may further undermine the program.