Let's keep justice. Please report.

It's an old joke, but when a argue and man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity.

She said, I ask no favor for my sex.

All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet or for our next.

Welcome back to Strix scrutiny, a podcast that so fierce, it's fatal. In fact, this is Melissa Murray. And I'm Kate Shaw.

I'm Leo Litman. And we have a terrific episode for you. One that focuses on June medical services versus Russo, which was argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 4th.

This is one of the most hotly anticipated cases of the October term. I just want to note here, this is a second time that we're trying to record this.

We did record it closer to the argument date, but unfortunately events intervened. We had some bad audio recording and then we had a bad virus pop up.

We're doing this directly from our home offices. So we hope the audio quality is good because we are so excited to finally bring this to all of you. So thanks for your patience.

Thank you for indulging these weird sounds that might be in the background given that my house is adjacent to a rather busy street. And while I've attempted to insulate the audio, I can make no promises and don't want anyone to blame melody for this.

So just wanted to put that out there and you know, we should also say the outset puppies and kids might enter the recording.

Yes, recording studios that we have set up. So and melody is not responsible for any of those either. So there's that.

So before we get into June medical, here is a rundown of the show. As always, we have some breaking news, spoiler alert. You probably already know what we're going to talk about.

And then we'll turn to June medical and we will then finish off with a little bit of court culture. Leah, why don't you start us off with the breaking news.

So we wanted to note two major sur grants that happened between the last episode we released and when we're recording this episode, those sur grants are in the affordable care act case.

That is the case in which Texas is arguing that the amendments to the Affordable Care Act and the Tax Custon Jobs Act rendered the minimum coverage requirement unconstitutional and that the entire affordable care act must be invalidated as a result.

The court of appeals for the fifth circuit agreed that the minimum coverage requirement is unconstitutional and now the house and Californians and other democratic led states are successfully convinced the court to hear the case now.

And the other major case is Fulton versus City of Philadelphia, which is the masterpiece cake shop related case about whether the city of Philadelphia had to give out foster care services contracts to agencies that discriminate against same sex couples.

And this is not just a follow on to masterpiece cake shop Fulton is also a follow on to some earlier sur grants, including the one involving the religious order little sisters of the poor, which is about the ACA's contraceptive mandate, but again raises this question of conscience exemptions, which are increasingly a means of avoiding compliance with laws of general applicability that require extending anti discrimination norms to a broad group of people or rather extending certain kinds of health coverage to the public.

And so we're going to do certain groups of people. So we'll be looking forward to all of that. Despite granting cert in those cases, we should also note that the court's work has really kind of ground to a halt like everything else and the wake of COVID-19.

So we learned this week that the court has closed the building to the public and has postponed its March sitting, which was slated to begin on Monday March 23rd.

...