News reports after the oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act (ACA)1 predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court was likely to invalidate the statute.2 Commentators blamed the performance of the government’s chief attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. A television analyst labeled Verrilli’s argument “a train wreck.”3 A blogger headlined: “Donald Verrilli makes the worst Supreme Court arguments of all time.”4 It was widely predicted that the “individual mandate” aspect of the ACA would fall by a 5 to 4 vote.5
As we all know today, the opposite happened: The individual mandate was upheld 5 to 4.6 We decided to study the oral arguments, with the benefit of perfect hindsight, to try to see why many commentators erred in their predictions about the outcome of the case and what lessons can be drawn.
The Individual Mandate
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
