Supreme Court divided on second day of health care hearings
The Supreme Court appears willing to rule on the administrations health care act, but what that ruling will be remains unclear after Tuesdays divisive oral arguments.
March 27, 2012 at 12:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Supreme Court appears willing to rule on the administration's health care act, but what that ruling will be remains unclear after Tuesday's divisive oral arguments.
Monday's hearings dealt with whether the court could rule on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) at all, considering that the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act prohibits taxpayers from challenging a tax before it has been instituted (the PPACA's financial penalties do not kick in until 2015). Most of the justices, however, seemed inclined to accept the government's argument that the PPACA's fine is a “penalty,” not a “tax” designed to raise revenue.
On Tuesday, the court heard two more hours of oral arguments. At issue was the act's individual mandate, which would require most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay financial penalties.
Several liberal justices argued in favor of the mandate, which administration lawyers say is permitted under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg contended that the health care market is unique, as “[t]he people who don't participate in this market are making it more expensive for those who do.”
But the conservative members of the court expressed concern about the law's scope. Chief Justice John Roberts worried that ruling in favor of the mandate would give the government power to regulate virtually any market. “Once we accept the principle, I don't see why Congress's power is limited,” Roberts said.
In light of the liberal/conservative divide, many expect Justice Anthony Kennedy to be the swing vote in the case. And his initially skeptical questioning of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had some analysts predicting that the mandate was in trouble.
Later in the day, however, Kennedy's questions suggested that he may be amenable to the administration's argument that the health care industry, which nearly every person will use at some point in life, represents an exceptional case. “[T]he young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries,“ Kennedy said.
How the judges rule on the individual mandate could have ramifications for the PPACA as a whole. On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments on the issue of severability, i.e. if the rest of the act can survive even if the mandate falls. It also will consider whether law's proposed Medicaid expansion is coercive to the states.
Although oral arguments end tomorrow, a final ruling on the legislation is not expected until June, giving the country plenty of time to debate the merits of each side's argument.
Read a full transcript of Tuesday's hearing on the Supreme Court's website.
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 AllKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
Trending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
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