A shocking revelation: One of the worst laws in history could head back to the U.S. Supreme Court

If you still root for Obamacare‘s ultimate collapse, the latest Bloomberg Businessweek offers at least some basis for hope.

Scores of lawsuits around the country are targeting parts of Obamacare, making another high court showdown all but inevitable and raising the possibility that some provisions in the health-care overhaul could be dismantled. “This law is going to be litigated up and down for years,” says Jonathan Adler, who directs the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

The next clash may be over the requirement that employer-provided insurance plans include contraceptive coverage; a case involving that issue could reach the high court this year. Hobby Lobby, a family-run craft store chain, and at least 34 other companies have sued for an exemption. They say the birth-control mandate violates their religious freedom, forcing them to provide something they consider immoral. “The government has plenty of other ways to deliver these drugs,” says Mark Rienzi, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The group represents Hobby Lobby, whose owners say they run the company “consistent with Biblical principles.” …

… Two other suits threaten to undercut a key aspect of the law: the subsidies set up to help low-income people buy insurance through the online marketplaces known as exchanges. One case is being pressed by Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general, the other by Michael Carvin, who helped argue the case against Obamacare at the Supreme Court last year. Pruitt and Carvin are making an argument that, if successful, would free some people from the penalties Obamacare imposes for not getting coverage. They say the law makes subsidies available only to people who buy insurance through state-run exchanges. Republican governors or legislatures in more than half of U.S. states refused to set up exchanges, so the federal government is stepping in to do it for them. Pruitt and Carvin say the law’s language on subsidies doesn’t apply to the federal exchanges. A ruling in their favor would abolish those subsidies in much of the country and by extension let more people claim that insurance is unaffordable. Under an exemption in the law, people who can’t afford insurance don’t have to pay the penalty.