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
© 2024 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 AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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