Health Care Victory: The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld federal health insurance subsidies. “In King v. Burwell, the 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., held that the health care act does not limit the subsidies, or tax credits, for health policies purchased on exchanges created only by states,” Zoe Tillman reports. Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned in his dissent that the Affordable Care Act should be called “SCOTUScare” because the majority was rewriting the law. But the decision doesn't mark the end of Obamacare's time in the national spotlight. Republicans are likely to use the issue to energize their base in hopes of increasing voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election. And that election could prove decisive for the health-care law, The Wall Street Journal reports. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz referred to the justices as “ robed Houdinis” on the floor Thursday and called the decision “nakedly political.” Challenges remain for the ACA implementation, including reaching those who are uninsured and stabilizing premium increases in marketplaces. Other challenges to the 2010 statute are still making their way up through the courts. With yesterday's decision came the revival of a Supreme Court tradition: The running of the interns.

Blocked: A U.S. district judge in Washington has blocked the release of the $400 milllion Bahia Emerald, the target of litigation for years, The Los Angeles Times reports. “The order, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, granted a request by the Department of Justice for a restraining order protecting the stone, arguing that it is subject to forfeiture in Brazil, where prosecutors in an upcoming criminal trial allege that two men knowingly received the stolen emerald and illegally smuggled it out of the country.” Read Kollar-Kotelly's order here. The Wall Street Journal has the back story here, and read earlier NLJ coverage here.

Fair Housing: The Supreme Court Thursday endorsed a broad interpretation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. “At issue was the fate of a crucial tool in challenging housing discrimination nationwide under the Fair Housing Act: so-called 'disparate impact' claims that challenge discriminatory housing practices, without having to prove that the discrimination was intentional,” Mike Sacks and Tony Mauro report. The vote was 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court's liberal members to form a majority.