The U.S Supreme Court announced today that it will decide a variety of issues related to the health care law. The Court agreed to hear three separate cases, though it did not agree to hear every issue presented in every case. Here are the specific questions the Court has agreed to resolve:
In no. 11-393 (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius): “Whether the Affordable Care Act must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’s limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.”
In no. 11-400 (Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services): “whether the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) the mandate can be severed from the remainder of the Act” – limited to the question of severability. This case has been consolidated with no. 11-393, and a total of 90 minutes has been allotted for oral argument.
In no. 11-398 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida): “Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision,” and “whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the
minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a).” Two hours of argument have been allotted for the first question, and one hour for the second.
In no. 11-400 (Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services): “Whether Congress exceeds its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces states into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or whether the limitation on Congress’s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer applies.”
Shorter version: the Court will decide (1) whether it is possible to challenge the individual mandate before it goes into effect; (2) if a challenge is possible, whether the individual mandate is constitutional; (3) if the mandate is not constitutional, whether the mandate can be severed from the rest of the law, or whether invalidating the mandate requires that the whole thing be thrown out; and (4) whether conditions placed on Medicaid funding “go too far” in terms of requiring the states to comply with congressional requirements in order to receive funding.
Should be a good one. The best place to go for unbiased, accurate information on these cases (and all matters related to the Supreme Court) is, as always, SCOTUSblog. Here is SCOTUSblog reporter Lyle Denniston:
The allotment of 5 1/2 hours for oral argument appeared to be a modern record; the most recent lengthy hearing came in a major constitutional dispute over campaign finance law in 2003, but that was only for 4 hours. The length of time specified for the health care review was an indication both of the complexity of the issues involved, and the importance they hold for the constitutional division of power between national and state governments. There is also a hot political debate going on across the country now on federal vs. state power, and the Court’s coming decision is likely to become an issue in that debate — especially since the final ruling is expected to emerge from the Court in June, in the midst of this year’s presidential and congressional election campaign.
David says
stomv says
When will this happen?
Working the Refs Sidebar:
* what are the odds that there will be a vacancy?
* how can/would the GOPers in the Senate drag feet to fill the vacancy so that Obama can’t get his nominee in for the vote?
David says
Most likely scenario is argument in March of ’12, decision by end of June of ’12.
Odds of a vacancy are very low, unless someone gets really sick or dies. Nobody resigns in an election year unless they have to, and mid-term resignations are rare in any event.
dcsohl says
I read that, “Nobody resigns in an election year unless they have to”, and was curious. So I looked it up. The last time a SCOTUS judge retired in a presidential election year was Sherman Minton in October 1956, due to poor health. Eisenhower actually appointed his successor, Brennan, via recess appointment three weeks before the election! And, sure enough, a big factor in Eisenhower’s selection was the election itself — he chose a Northeastern Catholic Democrat in an attempt to woo voters.
Brennan turned out to be an excellent Justice, but we can easily see how this sort of thinking could lead SCOTUS far astray as a court and us far astray as a nation.
No, election year retirements are extraordinarily rare, and now that I know more I gotta say it’s a good thing.
David says
although many see Brennan as a great Justice, Eisenhower himself did not, later describing his appointment as a “big mistake.”
stomv says
I wonder: just how unlikely is a really sick/die scenario to be? I didn’t expect a full health resignation in the next year even without the wisdom of david or the data of dcsohl.
But, macabre or not, how likely is it for one of our SCOTUS justices to get really sick or die between now and then?
Ginsburg DOB: 3/15/33
Scalia DOB: 3/11/36
Kennedy DOB: 7/23/36
Breyer DOB: 8/15/38
Thomas DOB: 6/23/48
Alito DOB: 4/1/50
Sotomayor DOB: 6/25/54
Roberts DOB: 1/27/55
Kagan DOB: 4/28/60
David says
the only Justice with health issues of any significance is Justice Ginsburg. But, again as far as I know, her health is stable and she is not expected to go anywhere anytime soon.
sabutai says
Kennedy might break on a couple minor points, but at this stage asking the Court’s opinion isn’t much different from asking the House’s to me.
I expect the law will be struck down because the 5 conservatives on the court don’t like it. Legal rationalizations to be supplied by their respective clerks.
jconway says
It will not be struck down because the four liberals and Kennedy like it. Legal rationalizations are absent from either side and have been for quite sometime. The liberals lost me with Kelo and the conservatives lost me with Bush v Gore. Both sides serve their partisan masters. Souter and Stevens might have been the last justices with consistent judicial philosophies.
David says
I think there’s a decent chance that the Court will punt by ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the challenge to the mandate until it takes effect in 2014. If it does so, it need not (and therefore will not) reach the question of the mandate’s constitutionality.
It will still probably have to rule on the Medicaid question, but that will have much less political traction than the mandate.
johnd says
What did Obama say during the 2010 State of the Union Address about the SCOTUS?
SomervilleTom says
If the individual mandate is struck down, then the result will be government-sponsored single-payer health care (after a hopefully short period of utter chaos). The current legislation is the best the health insurance industry is going to get. If it is struck down, then increases in health insurance premiums will accelerate and the health-care system will implode.
The Democrats (whether or not Barack Obama is president) will then be able to truthfully say “America tried to salvage privately-funded health care, and the result was ruled unconstitutional. Government-sponsored single-payer health care is the only option left”.
I think the Affordable Health Care Act is a disaster. It doesn’t work, it can’t work, and so long as it stands it only delays putting workable solution in place.
roborig says
Check out this article, there are no longer any ethics on the high court:
Hours After Considering Challenges to Health Care Reform, Supreme Court Justices Are Honored at Fundraiser Sponsored by Law Firms Representing Reform Opponents
Draw your own conclusions…