Ignition switches . We are watching the u. S. Supreme court at this hour and a block buster ruling that can be handed down at any moment with the current term about to end, justices have only today to release their decision, the most highly watch involves obamacare and hobby lobby, specifically whether under obamacare could force the retailer to provide emergency contraception under its health care coverage. Were awaiting that decision. Good morning to all of you. Good morning. Jim, i want to start with you, is the white house worried about this case . Well, i think judging by the way donna virli was batted around during the arguments back in this march, i think they have an indication this may not go their way. The Obama Administrations argument is reverse of mitt romneys corporations are people too lines. They are arguing koopgses are not people, they dont have the same religious freedoms, hobby lobby and other forprofit companies would have to provide coverage under that mandate in obamacare. Its interesting to point out that hobby lobby is not objecting to all types of contraception, but certain types like the morning after pill. I had a chance to ask the president about this. The pope did not raise the issue in the meeting and president obama told them that nonprofit corporations would have that freedom of religion to deny their employees, if they are affiliated with a hospital or anything. He didnt talk about hobby lobby. Its going to be interesting to see how it comes down. Important to know, a decision against the contraception mandate in obamacare, it would involve opponents of the law an important moral victory. Jonathan, the Supreme Court already ruled that corporations are people with Political Rights so why wouldnt the court rule that koorpgses have religious liberties. Thats exactly the question thats going to perplex justices. This is the flipside of Citizens United. In some places, the administration is at a disadvantage. The court in Citizens United said that corporations have free speech rights as persons and so this is the other side of that county coin. If they have those free speech rights as persons, how about the religious rights of persons . But the implications of this go beyond the aca. Theres a host of issues, whether they are saying you are forcing me to do something thats against my religious beliefs. So a Ripple Effect against the Obama Administration would be quite far reaching. Explain what you mean by far reaching. Would it mean for example if i get pregnant and im single that someone with religious beliefs would say we dont want you to work for us because you are violating what we feel thats in the bible. Could they do Something Like that . I think that would be a bridge too far for most of the justices of the court, certainly for a regular corporation and not a nonforprofit corporation. Weve challenges from baker ris who say we dont want to make cakes for samesex marriages. Does the outcome of those cases change . So far they have been going heavily against people who are raising those objections. A lot is going to depend on how the court does this. They could find that corporations have religious rights but they could also say this isnt a substantial burden on those rights or the government has a compelling interest. So theres a lot of side roads that the court could take here. Gloria, the kieser Family Foundation latest poll says the majority of americans feel the corporations should provide contraception even if it violates the owners religious beliefs . I think it could. The issue of the Supreme Court is always an issue during president ial campaigns and if democrats were to lose a case like this, they could try and appeal to women using this case and by the way there are lots of other challenges to the Affordable Care act that are pending on tax issues, for example, that could also be used in a president ial campaign. Lets face it, carol, everything the court does is political. These days, every decision can be viewed through a political lens and this one in particular, but i just want to add one thing to something jonathan said because there may be a way for the court here to kind of come out with a more talmudic if you will, that would say hobby lobby you have your rights but maybe there would be a way for these employees to get their Birth Control through federal subsidies, not through your company. Maybe your company doesnt have to pay for it, but maybe the government would. So there is there is another way they could approach this that would in fact be less politically explosive. The other part, jonathan thats interesting. Hobby lobby doesnt object to all contraception, right, just emergency contraception for specific kinds that hobby lobby says can cause abortion, in essence, right . But science doesnt support that. So if the court rules in hobby lobbys favor, isnt it say that religion can make those decisions over science . Thats a very interesting element to the case. We have to remember this case has been consolidated with another case and that case involves a mennonite family that runs a business and that family is against contraception generally, and so because they are consolidated, you really have the full range of options for the court, and so you are absolutely right that that would that raises a question that works to the benefit of the government, but the consolidation with those other cases is probably going to make it a wash. Jim, just a last question for you. If hobby lobby is only objecting to these four drugs or four methods of emergency contraception because two of them involved iuds, why not exempt companies with strong religious ownership and be done with it . Well, the Obama Administration has offered that as a possibility to nonprofit organizations. That is part of the case involving the sisters out in denver who have a separate case against the contraception mandate. They dont like being told to submit a piece of paper to the federal government asking to be exempted from that part of the law. But one other thing we should touch on, carol, theres another political component to this. If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama Administration, it will be once again the Supreme Court saying that the administration has sort of put an unconstitutional burden on the american people. That its been operating or doing things outside the constitution. Remember, just last week, the Supreme Court said the president could not make some recess appointments. Those pro forma appointments, it feeds into the republican narrative. Republicans make this case in the fall. The president isnt always winning these constitutional battles up at the Supreme Court. It could add some political ammunition for the republican side of things heading into the mid terms this fall if they want to make the case that hey this president , his entire administration is not following the constitution, and this hobby lobby case could fall into their court and be used as sort of a Political Tool heading into the fall. It is a possibility that could shape the Fall Campaign and fire up the republican base, carol. Absolutely. And im just hearing that the Supreme Court has handed down a decision on union fees. This is another very important case that some say could destroy unions in this country. Jonathan, explain please. Ive been asking people to Pay Attention to harris v. Quinn for week because hobby lobby sucks the oxygen out of the room. But this is a very important case. What is involved is a group of home care work sers who whork workers who essentially been charged union dues, they have been effectively forced to pay the union for representation even though they are not Union Members and the unions argument is that under the law in illinois, they had to negotiate for these people even though they werent in a union and got them a very good deal, but these people say, yeah, but you are still forcing us to associate with unions, you are forcing to speak through unions without our consent. Now the worrisome thing for the unions is that Justice Samuel alito does not have a lead opinion from the january argument and usually each of the justices get those opportunities. Alito is the last person the union wants to write this opinion. A couple of years ago he wrote an opinion that was a serious blow at least symbolically to unions and they fear he could be writer here. If its sam alito, it is a bad day for unions. We are reading through the opinion. Were going to do it over the break. All of you stick around. Well be right back. Mayo, corn dogs. You are so out of here ahh. The complete balanced nutrition of great tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals. 9 grams of protein. With 30 less sugars than before. Ensure, your 1 dr. Recommended brand now introduces ensure active. Muscle health. Clear protein drink and high protein. Targeted nutrition to feed your active life. Ensure. Take life in. vo cars for crash survival,ning subaru has developed our most revolutionary feature yet. A car that can see trouble. And stop itself to avoid it. When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested front crash prevention nobody beat subaru models with eyesight. Not honda. Not ford or any other brand. Subaru eyesight. An extra set of eyes, every time you drive. Im dave and i have copd. Im kate and i have copd, but i dont want my breathing problems to get in the way my volunteering. Thats why i asked my doctor about breo. Oncedaily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. And breo helps reduce symptom flareups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. Breo is not for asthma. Breo contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. It is not known if this risk is increased in copd. Breo wont replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. Breo may increase your risk of pneumonia, thrush, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. Tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high Blood Pressure before taking breo. Ask your doctor about breo for copd. First prescription free at mybreo. Com all right. We have a ruling in the union fee case that we were talking about. The u. S. Supreme court has handed a blow to unions across the country. What does it say . Its a blow to labor unions but its not as big a blow as some people thought. Let me explain the context if i could. Labor unions, often, they have a contract that covers all the workers, all the workers in a given area, and not all those workers sometimes choose to join the union. The question in this case was in the workers who are Home Health Care workers in illinois, the ones who dont want to be a part of the union can they be forced to pay some of union dues. Even though they are beneficiaries of the contract, but they dont want to be in the union, and the court said these workers in particular cannot be forced to pay their union dues. Whats significant about the case is that the Supreme Court did not view these workers as Public Employees. They are Home Health Care workers. They are sort of independent contractors, sort of government employees, so the decision is really just limited to these Home Health Care workers. Its not about all Public Employees and labor unions were particularly worried about a decision that would apply to all government workers, so its a narrow decision, a loss for the unions, but its not as catastrophic as many labor union people feared. Lets bring in rana faruhar. Is jeffrey right from the union perspective, its not as good as it not as bad as it could have been but well take it. Its yet another blow to unions which frankly have suffered many blows in the last 30 years. Its interesting. Union membership is way down from its peak. This will be another hit to that. Its also interesting, the areas for growth were actually in Service Areas like this, in health care, in retail, so its a blow to the areas that were really growth areas for unions as the traditional areas of membership like manufacturing have gone by the wayside in the last 30 years. I want to bring in Jonathan Turley once again. What stands out to you . I think it is a fairly significant blow. I think jeff is right it could have gone further but i think the last observation is really the key one, the nature of the labor force is changing and these workers are really the future worker that were seeing in the emerging markets. These homeworkers are share a lot of attributes of the new emerging workforce and for unions its a big blow because that was their growth area, and its going to be very difficult now to extend these contracts to get these type of dues. Its a blow in the sense that they lose those dues but its also a potential blow in terms of the new market and the new employee and how they will fit into this arrangement. Theres also a concern this is now the second blow to the unions in the last few years, and i think the unions feel that they are getting hit on all sides, not just by the economy but also legally in these opinions. There has been a Ruling Issued a decision it will be handed down in the hobby lobby case as well. I guess its no surprise the Supreme Court held this decision to release last, right . Thats the funny thing about the Supreme Court, they have a real sense of theater, they do hold the mat inee item for last. Hobby lobby case is a threshold that defines others. Its something everyone has been othe other waiting for. The hobby lobby decision has been handed down. Pamela brown is inside the courtroom. Jeffrey toobin is reading it. Hopefully well find out what that decision is when we come back. She got me drinking boost. Its got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. Helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. All with a delicious taste. Grandpa [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost. If yand youre talking toevere rheuyour rheumatologistike me, about a biologic. This is humira. This is humira helping to relieve my pain. This is humira helping me lay the groundwork. This is humira helping to protect my joints from further damage. Doctors have been prescribing humira for ten years. Humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. Humira is proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage in many adults. Humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. Serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. Blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening Heart Failure have occurred. Before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. Ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. Tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. You should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. Take the next step. Talk to your doctor. This is humira at work. And cialis for daily use helps you be Ready Anytime the moment is right. Cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. Tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. Do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in Blood Pressure. Do not drink alcohol in excess. Side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. To avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. If you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. Ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30tablet trial. Were hearing there has been a decision about hobby lobby and contraceptive care under obamacare. Were reading through that decision right now. With me is jim acosta, George WashingtonUniversity Law professor, Jonathan Turley, david broady and rana ruhar and Gloria Borger. I want to start with you Jonathan Turley a decision has been made. Everybody is talking about some sort of compromise or narrow ruling. Will it come down to what the chief Justice John Roberts kind of decided . Chief Justice Roberts is the one that snatched defeat away from the act last time. He was the deciding vote that decided the question for the individual mandate, something that he remains very controversial about with conservatives. The question is whether hes going to do that again here. The difference is that this really isnt a lethal threat to the aca, but it would cause great complications in the management of that act. The other one to watch i