. born online, raised by technology and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save. hassle, time, paperwork, hair-tearing out, and, yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. now backed by allstate. click or call. good morning. we start with some breaking news at any moment on the last day of the term. the supreme court is expected to land down the final two decisions this year's term. protesters are already gathering outside the the court. the most anticipated decision, hobby lobby. they are challenging a requirement in the affordable care act. both of those are family-run companies. they were founded on religious principles, and both of them object to a part of the health care law that requires some

employers to cover all contraceptives approved by the food and drug administration. they say that requirement violates its religious freedom. i want to bring in attorney an co-host of "the cycle." he's a constitutional attorney. as well as a legal expert and national reporter for msnbc.com. good to see you. let's start here. broad terms, what is at stake here for businesses. what is at stake for women as well. >> i think it's potentially the first time will say that corporations or some corporations have a soul. have the ability to hold religious views and act on them in ways that give them an kpipgs to follow in the laws that everyone else follows. number two, why it's important and devicive. we're not talking about religious freedom for workers or the average person. we're speaking about a type of religious people that reside in the corporate form. in the company itself. ie, business owners, the makers if you're talking about politics and not for the workers.

that's undercurrent here that has gotten loss. for the folks who say they want the religious freedom, the best argument they have and one i think the court will be sympathetic to is obamacare has some exceptions already. isn't that a viability exception? >> the exceptions made so far are mostly for religious institutions, churches, and so on that primarily for grandfathered plans that revently going to come on online. the obama administration said they don't count as exceptions. they point out women are enjoying access to no-cost birth control. previously they paid more for insurance. they didn't have coverage for the best kind of contraception. whether or not hobby lobby employees will pay the price for the boss' views.

you can end up having a ruling that only applies to groups like hobby -- companies like hobby lobby. you could have them say it was a theory they were intrigued by at the time that, you know, there is no employer mandate because the hobby lobby could pay a fine and send their employees on to the exchange. they're not violated -- >> what is hobby lobby what have they said about why they haven't done that? why not pay the fine? >> they claim it's part of their religious views -- they have suggested it is part of their religious views to offer a health insurance for their employees, which was laughed at in oral argument. you can't say everything is your religious view. >> that raises an interesting decision. what could the decision mean going forward for future challenges to laws based on religious grounds? >> a broad ruling here. a resulting that corporations first amendment speech rights are kplabl to the religious rights is a ruling that could mean that big companies say it's

their religious views that causes them to evade other laws. there's a lot of religions. you can respect views and worry about them being an pensiexcept law. >> there's another potentially major decision we expect to get today. harris v. quinn. home health care worker in illinois. she said the automatic dedeductions that were being taken out and, you know, we just -- we've got a decision on that. we've got a decision rights now on the union case, as i understand it. pete williams is standing by at the high court. what can you tell us? >> i would say that advocates of unions for public employees have dodged a bullet in this decision. the supreme court gives a mixed decision here. declines to go as far as opponents of unions in the public workplace wanted it to go. declines to say that public employee unions can never be required to pay union dues.

that was the question here. this involved people who worked at home doing home care in illinois. they objected to a law that is in about half the states that says even if you're not a member of the union that represents public employee workers, so you to pay the portion of union dues that goes to collective bargaining costs. these employees challenged that saying, well, what public employees get paid is a public matter and requiring them to support the union violated their first amendment rights. what this opinion says here, i just gotten it, is that it's limited to the pea call already nature of the employees in the case. they're quasi public/private. they work at home. for all of those reasons the court gives what appears to be a victory to them but declines to extend it beyond to public employee unions in general. there's no strengthening of rights here for public employees. but there is no wholesale shot

at ability of public employee unions to collect the fees. that would have been a huge setback. i would say public employee unions dodged a bullet. it sounds like another narrow ruling from the court. pete, i know you're combing through the through decision there. what might it mean for the so-called fair share dues? that's what we're talking about, craig. i'm listening to two things at once. that was the issue was the fair share dues. the question wasn't whether they have to pay all the union dues. the question is whether they just pay the portion of dues that goes to compensate the union for what it negotiates in terms of pay and benefits. collective bargaining. because even the employees who are not in the union get the benefits of whatever the union deal cuts. could they be required to pay for that. the court said public employees like this these that work at

home didn't have to. they didn't overrule the previous ruling that applied to public employee unions in general. >> all right. and now we're all just waiting for the one decision, pete. >> i'll be back when it comes. >> thank you. there are some surmised that a sweeping ruling that struck down the so-called -- that fair share -- the fair share dues that would have been tantamount to congress passing a national right to work bill. >> yeah. look. what a lot of conservatives wanted was to used case that we're talking about, that has been handed down to overrule the 1977 case that provided some collection for collecting union dues this way. as pete said, it looks like the court hasn't done that. you have a limited ruling about these quasi public employees. again, to give people some meat on the bone here. we're not talking about teachers union. we're not talking about -- >> those are sciu. >> we're talking about the issue in this case is home medical

workers. again, the situation where the court is looking at the particular thing and say do we want to go big? they're not going big and not using the case to roll back any kind of big balance in the way we regulate unions. >> a 5-4 decision we should note. 5-4 decision in that particular case. let's turn back and talk about the hobby lobby case. the one we're expecting a decision on any moment now. i want to show our viewers at home and the listeners on the radio. some of the excerpts from oral arguments. i found it interesting. justice e lee that kagan. the companies have a choice in the matter. there's a choice. it's not even a penalty in the language of the statute. it's a payment tax. that's coming from justice kagan. there was justice sotomayor who said during the oral argument. she asked the question -- do we have it? is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it

include items like blood transfusion vaccines or some religious products made of pork. is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis. could the employer preclude the use of those items as well. that would seem to be one of the central questions in the case. if a company can say you know what, we have a religious objection to this type of birth control. what does that mean going forward? >> right. and in this particular instance there's women health care. there are religious objections to all sorts of things. she went to the heart of it. blood transfusions, strax nations, and so on. the question is if a corporation can be religious, and the religion is synonymous with the employer without weighing the third party harms to the employees. you open the door to all sorts of exemptions. >> just finding out. justice samuel ali to is writing the decision for both of these cases. what can we glean from that, if

anything? >> if alito is writing the hobby lobby decision it's likely 5-4 or 9-0. i would say more likely 5-4. that's something else they wonder. why do the big decisions come out on the last day of the term? because the judges are people. and people do the hard thing last. that is why. and so the unanimous decisions, you know, a great moment from the court last week unanimous on fourth amendments right on the cell phone. they were proud of the decision. they put it out earlier and had agreement. it was easier to do at the practical level. it's likely that what we see this morning in hobby lobby, as you say, as we writtsay is writy alito. >> likely not good for fans of birth control. he was sympathetic to hobby lobby's case. >> what did we learn from oral argument? >> justice kennedy seemed torn. in the courtroom you could, in the first half, see he had some sympathy for the female

employees and wondered, you know, how do we create a legal acounting for what happens to employees who have to pay more because of their boss' religious believes. had they were questioning the government solicitor general. if the government is allowed to force an employer to do all sorts of things to comply with the law. could you force the company to provide abortions? could you force the hospital to provide abortions? we have laws on the books that is not the case. when people heard that they became afraid. kennedy was considering the swing vote in the case. >> what do we know about the families in the particular companies. hobby lobby in oklahoma and conastoga. >> it's a small cabinet maker in pennsylvania. they lost their case at the third circuit. they are men kn they object to a handful of contraception. the greens are hobby lobby

owners. they are billionaires and the company is held in a closely held trust. >> hobby lobby objects specifically to two types of birth control. correct me if i'm wrong. the intrauterus devices and the morning after pill. those are the two specific objections. >> if there's a possibility that a fertilized egg that is potentially implanted is the same as abortion. we don't have proof of that. even if we did, it's no -- not the definition of abortion. from a legal perspective, it's not relevant because of religious belief is not subject to being questioned on scientific basis. but a political and medical and, you know, sort of humans talking to each other perspective. this is not abortion. >> let's take a quick break. again, we're awaiting a decision from the high court. when it comes down, we'll bring

it to you. this is msnbc. this is kathleen. setting up the perfect wedding day begins with arthritis pain and two pills. afternoon arrives and feeling good, but her knee pain returns... that's two more pills. the evening's event brings laughter, joy, and more pain... when jamie says... what's that like six pills today? yeah... i can take 2 aleve for all day relief. really, and... and that's it. this is kathleen... for my arthritis pain, i now choose aleve. get all day arthritis pain relief with an easy-open cap. (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. hi, credit report site andour i have a problem. i need to speak with your fraud resolution department. ugh, we don't have that. what should i tell him? just make that super annoying modem noise... (shuuuuuuuh....zzzzzzzz...de ee...dong...shuuuhh...) hello? not all credit report sites are equal. classic. experian.com members get personalized help plus fraud resolution support.

join now at experian.com.

welcome back. on this monday we continue to wait for some breaking news here. that major decision expected any moment on the hobby lobby case at the supreme court. we've already gotten one decision on unions, a narrow decision. a narrow decision hearing from our justice correspondent pete williams personal assistants that work at home do not have to pay union dues, but the high court left the law standing for other public employees. all right, what does that mean in practical terms? >> what it means in practical terms the court took a case about a category of employee. the terminology being -- to read from the decision agency fee collection for rehab program 8

p-8. for that category they cannot force that kind of collection. the connection between hobby lobby the first amendment rights exempt you as a home health care worker prevent you from paying that fee. what if you're a nurse in a hospital or public schoolteacher. it doesn't go that far. >> it extends to not being forced to be a part of speeches. >> that's right. if you're not a lawyer and you don't follow it closely. >> we have the other decision. pete williams standing by for it us. what did the justices say? >> okay. what we have is a very narrow ruling that is a victory for the companies in this case. the supreme court has said that a closely held company like hobby lobby or conastoga wood or can be exempt from the contraceptive coverage from obamacare.

this is very narrow ruling. the court isn't saying that all corporations can refuse to abide by certain laws because it would violate the corporations' religious belief. the court said for closely held for-profit companies like those, they can be exempt from the requirements of the obamacare. >> so, again, peter, another narrow decision from this court. do we know at this point whether it was 5-4? >> let me look. i just got it mere. yes. 5-4 justice alito writing the opinion. >> i'm not surprised. i would say oral argument reflected some of this view. this is a court clearly that believes that it is consistent with our first amendment to apply these protections to corporations as well as persons or what normal people call

humans. >> that term, closely held company, for folks not familiar with it. what does it mean? what is a closely held company? >> well, let me get to that in a second here, but, you know, just like a family company. not publicly traded. i think a key part of this decision here, it seems apparent from last 20 seconds i've had to look at it is sort of an ancillary question that was involved in the case. so there's a sort of a multipart analysis in this case. first of all, does requiring these companies to pay violate their religious believes? can they have religious believes? does the religious freedom restoration act count here? the court says yes. but then the second part of the able cities is what the government wants them to do important enough and is it narrowly tailored enough to justify getting into the area? and the court basically says no. that this is not narrowly

tailored. they haven't shown that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive way of advancing their interests in getting contraceptive coverage. justice kennedy says in his opinion here, in his concurrence that the government could pay for the care which is the similar thing to what is done in the case of religious affiliated organizations, which are exempt from this. the government pays for the coverage there. justice kennedy made the same point during oral argument. i guess it's no surprise this is his position in this ruling. >> moving forward. what might this mean for female workers at these closely-held companies? >> there are 49 other plaintiffs behind hobby lobby that would like exceptions. those are for-profit corporations. i think we have seen a goal post moving here. when the regulation came out that all plans would have to cover contraception. the conversation was about universities.

i think you have seen a real expansion from the right on what kinds of exceptions they want to see. we may see it is a narrow ruling. taco bell and walmart can't opt-out. it's an enormous expansion of corporate rights and of the refusal from the laws that are passed to create benefits for everybody. >> i know you continue to thumb through the decision. let me say a couple of things. first of all, there was concern about the oral argument some of the justicings, justices cay began, sotomayor, ginsburg said if we give this pass to employers for contraceptive coverage, what is next? could an employer say for religious purposes they don't want to pay for vaccinations or blood transfusions? the court goes out of the way to try to make the decision as narrow as possible. it's specifically says this decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate, and nobody should understand it as to apply to other insurance mandates like blood transfusions or vaccine. they say does not provide a shield for employers who want to cloak illegal discrimination in

religious believes or religious practices. so they could not have cut this anymore narrowly. they're trying to anticipate the critici criticism, obviously, that come up during the oral argument and since then. if you open this door, then could an employer say, well, we're not going to serve gays and lesbians. we don't want to bake cakes for muslims or whatever. the court is making it clear they're trying to limit this just to this question of the contraceptive mandate to companies that are family-owned, closely held, and have clearly established religious views. in other words, it's a clear victory for hobby lobby. and probably 50 or 60 countries like them that filed lawsuits like this. that's about it. >> i think pete is sitting on an important point. the case comes up from those challenging the law. they're challenging certain things in their context. and the court here in the type

of ruling we're seeing is saying this is for these kind of companies. not publicly held companies and not every exception you can think of. but the specifically religiously based contraceptive concerns. the larger dock trienl implications is potentially significant, craig. that it for the first time, the court is going and taking the first amendment rights we have seen long established for certain corporate entities and extending them to the religious idea. to the idea that a company's owners, in the closely held structure can say we're a religious company. what does it mean and how will it unfold over time? will larger companies want to get in the game? we adodon't know. there's an incentive for companies to be religious companies. >> do you read it as the high court saying maybe not all corporations are people. but at least the small ones? >> here is the thing. we have long seen decisions that do treat corporations as persons. that can be good or bad for the

corporations. it can haul them in court. it's a legal fiction that does a lot of work. what is new today, i think what wealth see in history, is new today is the court saying that certain corporations can have a religious identity and a religious belief system of their own. that will be good news to many people who feel that religion is not welcomed in parts of commerce and public life. there are people who will obviously cheer that decision. but legally, that is a new step that goes beyond political speech. >> is this going to be seen as a complete and utter defeat for women's reproductive rights or is that an overstatement? >> i think you're going to see a lot of disappointment. only because it was restricted to women's health doesn't mean it doesn't create a devastating effect. millions of women use contraception every day. they don't think their iud is abortion, because it isn't. treating it differently is going to resonate. one of the things that the paragraphs said is -- plaintiff

said the government can give people birth control. guess what? the republican party is trying to get rid of title x which provides contraception. it's an all-out assaults on contraceptives. pete williams continues to standby at the high court. we like to give him three or four minutes to thumb through that. how long is the decision, pete? >> let me look. it's 49 pages. here is a key part of it, i think. it says in this sort of expands on something i was talking about here. let me just read a little out of it. our decision in these cases concerns solely with the contraceptive mandate. it should not be understood to hold. an insurance mandate -- other

coverage requirements like immunezations may be supported by different interests like the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases. it came up in oral argument as well, the so called heard necessity if you leave people out of immunizations they can spread it and you need to immunize everybody. then they say that the dissenters raise the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example, on the basis of race could be cloaked as a religious practice to escape legal sanction. i'll quote them, our decision provides no such shield. again, language trying to make it as narrow as possible. >> what might it mean going forward for the administration? is there a legislative recourse at this point? could the obama administration then say, okay, we'll, if we can't do this, what about this? >> well, i think the possibility

that congress would do anything to refine obamacare at this stage is pretty unlikely. what it means is that these companies don't have to provide the contraceptive insurance. how they will get, i think, is something that the administration will have to decide on its own whether the government will pay for it as with the case that companies get a pass from this because they're religiously affiliated. there's a whole path of cases waiting about what other religious affiliated institutions can get a pass from this law as well. church schools, that kind of thing. how far does that exception go. that's a separate question and another one the supreme court may have to deal with. >> all right. justice correspondent pete williams at the high court. the supreme court handing down a decision related to the president's signature health

care law. we're going take a quick break. when we come back. we'll get more reaction. once again supreme court ruling that certain family companies are exempt from the so-called contraception mandate. this is msnbc. we're moving our company to new york state. the numbers are impressive. over 400,000 new private sector jobs... making new york state number two in the nation in new private sector job creation... with 10 regional development strategies to fit your business needs. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york... with the state creating dozens of tax-free zones where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. become the next business to discover the new new york. [ male announcer ] see if your business qualifies.

that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant.

so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. really... so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 dollars a month? yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month.

low dues... great terms... let's close. introducing at&t mobile share value plans... ...with our best-ever pricing for business. the decision is in the hobby lobby case. the supreme court ruled it closely held private companies are in fact exempt from the obamacare contraception mandate. attorneys for hobby lobby are speaking now. let's listen in. >> we don't know what the government will choose to do next, but we know that the greens are free from the unjust mandate. the government should author the same protections to religious ministries like the little sisters of the poor, and television network who is asking the supreme court for relief today. women like barbara green and elizabeth hahn fought for their religious freedom.

today they won. women like the little sisters of the poor will continue that fight. women's voices are heard. standing up for religious freedom. this case is about the freedoms of all americans, women and men. and it's something that all americans that should celebrate today. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> right there is one of the attorneys for hobby lobby celebrating a narrow victory today there at the supreme court. democratic congressman nina. former chair of the congressional women's caucus and the pro-choice caucus. nancy, let me start with you. your general reaction to the court's decision and next recourse >>well, for heaven's sake. it's 2014, and over 90% of women use contra september sepgs at

so -- contraception. it's an important part of preventive medicine for women. the fact that the supreme court decided to carve out an exemption when it comes to women's health is wrong headed. it's important that women be able to have this benefit of the affordable care act, which is that they can have no copay contraception to protect their health and plan their futures. >> what is next for your group? >> we're going to be looking for as much as a fix for the women employees as possible. unfortunately, for the employees of hobby lobby, you know, their boss gets to decide their insurance coverage and how they are able to not have coverage for contraception. we're going to be looking for administrative fixes, legislative fixes to make sure that they get the benefit. and women across america have seen from the affordable care act. >> let's talk about a potential legislative fix here. what might that look like? >> first of all, i think it's important to make it very clear that a women's health decision

should be between the women and her doctor. it's important to note that the affordable care act exempted religious institutions, churches, other institutions that clearly are religious. but employers who have their own views who employ thousands of people shouldn't get between the woman and her doctor. women should be available to get the whole range of contraceptive care, women's health care, all health care that they and their doctor determine. >> moving forward, though, now that the decision has come down. it would seem to me that the obama administration has defined a different way to free contraceptive is was for the women. >> i want to make it clear they already did that. we already did that. the insurance companies will pay

for contraception if the employer determines they will not do it. the insurance company has that responsibility. so this is a case that really didn't have to be and it's really detrimental to the relationship between the employer and the employee between the doctor and the employee. women should be making their own health care decisions. >> nancy, the legal question here, at least one of them. was about the right to religious believes. but the political question is contraception and abortion. do you think that the abortion question affected ruling? >> i haven't read the opinion yet. it just came down. what is important to note is issue is common form of contraception which is iud. they are safe, and do not cause abortion. >> they are expensive too. we're talking $500, $1,000 for

each? >> right. iuds are effective form of long-term contraception. they are expensive and have up-front cost. it was a great promise of the affordable care act that women could choose the contraception, which might be right for them for, at no copay. and there is no question that emergency contraception, which was an issue in the case, iud, they prevent pregnancy. they are not causing abortions. so it's very important they be covered as part of it. it's not a legal question. medical science has, you know, answered that question. and so it's, in fact, something that is thrown out that shouldn't be part of the debate at all. we're only talking about birth control in this case and women should be able to access the full range of what might be right for them. >> do you -- do you find any sou sou sou souls -- souls at a soul -- hav

opinion yet. they seem to be saying, don't worry about immunezation laws and don't about other things that could be mandated. but i would say that's wrong headed. we have to stop separating out women's health care from health care. and nothing is more important to women's health care than being able to control the planning and spacing of their children and family planning. >> and although the justices decided to make it a narrow decision, what is next? will ja hoe have a witnesses bring a case and exempt blood transfusions, vaccinations? i think it's a dangerous step going between the women, doctor, and her medical decisions. and also, the women may have to pick up these expenses because now the insurance companies will say they don't have to pay for it. >> all right, pete williams standing by. i understand you've been able to, again, go through a little

bit more. i want to pick up on something that the congressman woman alluded to. it would seem to me, pete, it's based on your reporting and some of the notes i've read here that the high court really did try to go out of its way to make sure that this was a decision that was seen very much in a narrow scope, no? >> yes. and they do specifically say this is not -- this can't be an excuse for a company to refuse to cover vaccinations, blood transfusions, that kind of thing. let's step back and just think about what is happened here. for the first time in history, the u.s. supreme court has said that a corporation can claim that it has religious views that give it exemption from certain laws. now, the court specifically addresses the argument that the government made here. it's the corporation that provides the insurance coverage not the people who own it. and therefore, a corporation can't have religious views. that corporations are set up to be legally separate from their

owners. well, the supreme court says about that that congress designed this law, the religious freedom law we've been talking about here to provide very broad protections for religious liberty and did not intend to require business people to make a choice between their religious believes on the one hand and the protections of using the corporate form on the other. in other words, they say you can have both. it said the whole point of this law is to protect the rights of the people associated with the corporations including shareholders, officers, and employees. it says protecting the freedom of religion rights of closely-held corporations protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. now, of course, the other side of this case said what about the humans who work for them? what about the employees? who is going pay for their contraceptive coverage? the government pointed out that over 50% of births in america now are unwanted pregnancy.

and 98% of women use contraceptives at some point in their lives. so, you know, the company justice kennedy in his concurrence here said the government could pay for these contraceptives if it's believed -- if it believes they're that important. that's the option that it leaves open. it's not certain at this point that the employees these companies, for example, who now know they can't get their contraception in some cases, paid for by the company. it's worth pointing out that the companies -- there's something like 40 forms of contraception that are required to be covered ushtd the law. the company said they only objected to two kinds of the so-called morning after pill, plan b., and two type of iud. they said it would be limited. on the other hand, those are four of the most popular form of contraception. >> pete, thank you so much, as always, sir.

for the insight and analysis. nancy, for those not particular with the two specific types. what can you tell us about the specific types of birth control and why they would have been singled out? >> the reason they're singled out is the unscientific religious believes of the folks that are bringing the claim. the reality is they're no different than other forms of iuds or emergency contraception. that is they prevent pregnancy. and all they do that's what a contraceptive is. they should not be singled out and treated differently. pete, are you still with me? okay. he's on the phone. we'll try to go to him later. >> i want to follow up on the last comment. >> hold that thought. pete, quickly. 5-4 decision, is that right? >> yes. written by justice alito. let me look at who writes the dissent here.

justice ginsburg wrote the dissent. >> 30 to 450 seconds. if you give us a snippet from justice ginsburg dissent. >> i was going say although they tried to narrow the decision. the three women in justice brieer was on one side. it's not the government's responsibility. it's not the government to determine weather an employer, in this particular case, is a corporation or whether employer has a right to make that decision. i would hope that we can move forward with a constructive response to this decision. is it -- is it realistic to expect that anything constructive is going to come out of congress in terms of legislative. >> it would be nice if it could. you're absolutely right. i think it's a dangerous precedent.

you're going to be seeing many cases before the supreme court. >> pete, with you, sir. >> you asked about the dissent says. justice ginsburg doesn't buy the analysis that the holding will be narrow. she cause it is a decision of starting breadth and a commercial comprise including corporations and can opt-out of any law except for tax laws they judge to be incompatible with their religious believes. he says that congress never intended the religious freedom restoration act to go that far. >> justice ginsburg there. pete williams. thank you. more ahead from the supreme court. stick with us. this is msnbc. say "hi" rudy. [ barks ] [ chuckles ] i'd do anything to keep this guy happy and healthy. that's why i'm so excited about these new milk-bone brushing chews. whoa, i'm not the only one. it's a brilliant new way to take care of his teeth. clinically proven as effective as brushing. ok, here you go.

have you ever seen a dog brush his own teeth? the twist and nub design cleans all the way down to the gum line, even reaching the back teeth. they taste like a treat, but they clean like a toothbrush. nothing says you care like a milk-bone brushing chew. [ barks ] sfx: car unlock beep. like a milk-bone brushing chew. vo: david's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

all right. breaking news. we continue to follow reaction now live look at the supreme court there in washington, d.c., as folks continue to react to the decision that just came down. the supreme court ruling that

closely held private companies are exempt from the obamacare contraception mandate. also, starting to get some reaction from capitol hill. just got this in from senator minority leader mitch mcconnell, quote, today's supreme court decision makes clear that the obama administration cannot stramp l on the religious freedoms that meshes hold deal. obamacare is the single worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 50 years. i was glad to see the supreme court agree. that coming from mitch mcconnell from kentucky, senator minority leader. i would imagine that's a line or a version ever a line we're going hear trotted out a great deal between now and november. >> absolutely. the republican base is going to be energized very much by this decision. they see it as a huge blow to obamacare, which several cycles after impasse is still a huge election issues.

and huge issue for republicans at the polls. i would say that democrats, we're going to get some advantage out of it. the decision was definitely not a boom for pro-choice voters. democrats will fundraise the you know what out of this the next couple of weeks. >> both sides. won't both sides? >> both sides will. i have to say democrats usually in the past. they have become better on fundraising. it's good for online fundraising. something house democrats have become good at. both sides will fundraises but house democrats will get more. >> will it be smart for republicans to spend a great deal of time talking about women's reproductive rights? >> so that's the other side of this coin, right. it's, you know, mitch mcconnell, what he said was politically smart for his state and upcoming race in november, right. but don't expect ever republican, especially those in competitive senate contests to

issue a statement like that. i got a statement from mark udall. single female voters are desirable voting blocks. he's blasting it. mark udall, a democrat, but i don't know if his opponent would go out on the same ledge as mcconnell praising the decision. >> is this something that you guys might use to fundraise? >> well, -- i have less concern about fundraising. i'm more concerned about the women it's going to affect. it makes no sense. women in this country use birth control to protect their health and plan their families. if you think about it. there's a reason we have a birthrate of about two per women. that's because most women will spend maybe five years of their life trying to become pregnant or being pregnant, and spend the next, you know, 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy. fir their health, family, and

future. i think you'll see a lot of women outraged it's going to be viewed their employers can decide they don't get this benefit. >> devil's advocate here. how much does it matter whether that is something that is paid for by closely held company or a third party? >> well, all of us, you know, get our health insurance, most of us, through our employers. that's the easy, seamless way to get coverage. to be able to have your employer pick and choose what kind of coverage you can get based on their religious believes is just fundamentally wrong headed. each of our own religious believes are important and we can decide our health care decisions based on that. but, you know, you can't have corporations deciding, you know, broad-based issues like this. are we going to become a law unto ourselves? no. we have general laws that apply to the population. including laws about public health. >> thank you to both of you. again, we continue to follow reaction now from that supreme court decision.

reaction to the supreme court decision. lots more right after this. this is msnbc. avo: waves don't care what age you are. take them on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day men's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares.

that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business.

breaking news on this monday. the decision is in from the supreme court in that hobby lobby case. the high court ruled that closely held private companies are, in fact, can be exempt from the obamacare mandate. so the-called contraception mandate. this is one of the hobby lobby lawyers. lori, are we considering this a complete victory is. >> yes. we consider it to be a complete victory for the green family and hobby lobby. >> during oral arguments justice kagan raced the issue it would open the way against those covering social security, immunezation as well, insurance for same-sex spouses could be the issue. where do you draw the line? what do you say to that? >> what justice alito was that the case would not apply to the other cases.

you have to look at each case individually. congress struck a very good balance here when it decided the religious freedom restoration ability. you have to balance the burden on the religious freedom against the government's interest. it's weak. there's a lot of ways the government can accomplish the goal without involving the green family. >> at the time it filed the lawsuit the 401(k) plan held more $72 million in mutual funds invested in companies that produced the same contraception drugs that hobby lobby opposes is. this is that hypocritical? >> hobby lobby doesn't have any holdings in pharmaceutical companies. . allows the employee invest whenever they like. hobby lobby allows the employees to purchase contraceptive. whatever wants they one on their own. they're asking that the government not force them to be involved and provide drugs that could terminate a human life. >> what is next for the companies?

>> well, hobby lobby is going to continue business as usual. their employees will receive salaries at double minimum wage and receive the same excellent benefits. we're thrilled and hobby lobby is looking to getting back to business as with usual. >> before i let you go for folks who haven't been following the case as closely as some of us have been. why not pay the penalty. why didn't they say we'll pay the penalty or why not abandon the health care all together? >> hobby lobby wants to provide for its employees. that's part of their religious believes. they don't want to just cancel everybody's insurance over four specific drugs and devices that would be a serious penalty on hobby lobby. they would have to pay $2,000 per employee to the irs in addition to raising wages to make sure their employees were made whole. we i think the court made the decision today for hobby lobby and its employees. >> winning attorney for hobby lobby. thank you. thank you, as well, for joins

us. thank going to wrap up the hour on msnbc. news name with tamron hall is up next. creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan,

insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans

endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. sfx: car unlock beep. vo: david's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

good morning, everyone. i'm tamron hall. this is news nation. we begin with big breaking news. the u.s. supreme court ruling that employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for contraceptive coverage under president obama's health care law. the decision 5-4. coming on the last day of the court's current term. the court stressed that the ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people there's no essential difference between the business and its owner. we begin with the coverage nbc news justice responded wi eed p williams has been staked out and has the breaking developments. give us the step-by-step here so people don't understand even down to what is a corporation and the size that matters