Issues Before the Courts

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes important advances in women’s health care, addressing a crisis of discrimination and obstacles to access truly national in scope. Indeed, a major purpose and concern of Congress in passing the ACA was improving women’s health and ameliorating the disadvantages and discrimination women have faced in obtaining health care and health insurance. Like the civil rights laws of the past 50 years, the ACA aims at “a moral and social wrong” that itself has profound economic consequences. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 257 (1964).

As the 2010-2011 Supreme Court term progresses, advocates for women’s rights are relieved that in the three employment rights decisions that the Court has released thus far, the Court interpreted the law according to its purposes and intent and did not set aside crucial protections against discrimination in order to protect corporate interests.  But, the Court recently heard arguments in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a critical case that could determine whether individuals can join together in a class action to challenge large corporations that violate the law, and skeptical questioning by the Court’s conservative Justices raises the specter of recent adverse decisions such as Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.