Supreme Court to finally hear ObamaCare arguments
The long-awaited day has finally come. Two years after the Obama administration passed the much-maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Supreme Court today finally begins to hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of the law. And the hype is so large that spectators have been queuing up...
March 26, 2012 at 07:48 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The long-awaited day has finally come. Two years after the Obama administration passed the much-maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Supreme Court today finally begins to hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of the law. And the hype is so large that spectators have been queuing up for days just to get seats in the courtroom.
The March 23, 2010, law, which President Obama intended to radically overhaul health care for millions of Americans, has been reviled by Republicans and the masses alike, who claim its scope is too intrusive and is an albatross for states, businesses and the individuals the President intended to help.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments for the next three days. Today's arguments are seen more as an appetizer to the meat of the hearings, which begin tomorrow. The arguments today center on whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which forbids a lawsuit to challenge a tax before the tax has been paid, precludes the court from considering the constitutionality of the PPACA until 2015 when individuals could first sue for a refund on fines imposed for failure to comply with the bill's individual mandate.
On Tuesday, the court is expected to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and on Wednesday, the court will consider whether the rest of the health care bill, or parts of it, can remain in place if the individual mandate is struck down.
The law's critics contend that the entire law should be invalidated, while the Obama administration counters, saying the PPACA's provisions aren't connected to the mandate and should remain in place regardless of whether the insurance requirement is axed.
While there has been significant discussion about whether or not the Supreme Court would finally relent and allow cameras into the courtroom, culminating with the Senate Judiciary Committee last month passing a bill to allow for such coverage, the court will keep the cameras on the outside for the time being. The court itself will provide audio recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments on an expedited basis through its website, while C-SPAN has live coverage from outside the building.
For more, read the Wall Street Journal and Reuters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Being a Profession is Not Malarkey
- 2Bring NJ's 'Pretrial Opportunity Program' into the Open
- 3High-Speed Crash With Police Vehicle Nets $1.6 Million Settlement
- 4Embracing a ‘Stronger Together’ Mentality: Collaboration Best Practices for Attorneys
- 5Selling Law. How to Get Hired, Paid and Rehired
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250