Which means it was null and void before even discussing the First Amendment. However, the SC wouldn't have even heard the case (concerning constitutional violations of religion) if they didn't think there was something that needed to be heard.<quoted text>
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
Think of it kind of like a baseball game. It's two outs and the game is tied. After the ball is hit, the home team scores the winning run. After a replay challenge is made, they discover that the guy running to second was thrown out before the relay to home which was questionable.
What difference does it make what happened at home? The game is still over so what's the point of reviewing the play at home base?
Either way, this is a point for the good guys. The United States Federal Government is not in charge of telling employers what kind of benefits they have to offer to their employees. Hell, the former Soviet Union probably didn't demand that of their employers.
Under the DumBama administration, our federal government has gotten too strong and too intrusive in our lives. Because if the courts ruled (under any provision) that government has that kind of power to micromanage our personal lives, then we would surly be in a state of tyranny.