The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take a broader look at President Barack Obama?s health reform law than most people expected over the course of 5-plus hours of oral argument ? an unprecedented amount of time in the court?s modern history.
The court?s decision to accept a challenge to the law?s individual mandate was widely anticipated. But what surprised many was the court?s decision to wade into three other issues of the health law ? especially the planned expansion of Medicaid ? that could carry significant consequences for the legislation and the outlines of Congress?s constitutional powers.
Continue ReadingThe sheer amount of time allotted ?tells us that this is a historic case and the court views it that way,? said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who is working with the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the government. ?They don?t grant 5? hours on an ?easy? case.?
The court?s ruling, likely to be issued in June, is almost certain to be a defining moment for national health policy and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, regardless of which way the court rules. The ruling will also assure that the health reform law will play an even greater role in the presidential election.
Opponents of the health law argue that the individual mandate violates Congress?s enumerated powers in the Commerce Clause. A ruling on the issue could redefine what Congress can and cannot do, they say.
But the court has an out ? one that it agreed to spend some time on. The court agreed to consider whether a federal tax law prevents it from ruling on the mandate issue until at least 2015. But doing so would fly in the face of strong pressure from both sides to get a definitive Supreme Court ruling as soon as possible.
The justices combined requests from 26 states, the NFIB and the Justice Department. They?ll examine whether the law?s requirement to buy insurance and the required expansion of the Medicaid program are constitutional. They?ll also consider which pieces of the law should be struck if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional and whether the tax law ? the Anti-Injunction Act ? requires them to delay a decision on the mandate until after people have paid the tax penalty for not having insurance.
Health-policy and legal experts were surprised the court agreed to examine whether the law?s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Congress?s changes to the Medicaid program ? a state-run program with federal requirements and funding ? have been challenged before, but lower courts have always upheld them.
?The Medicaid issue has the potential to dwarf the individual mandate in its importance,? said Walter Dellinger, an acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration and a strong supporter of the health law. ?If the court were to hold that the changes in the Medicaid law were constitutionally coercive, that would be close to a revolution in constitutional law.?
Dellinger said such a ruling would limit Congress?s ability to alter Medicaid and ?call into question the government?s use of the spending power across a wide range of activities.?
espn magazine anywhere but here wall street protesters att new york yankees pittsburgh penguins westboro baptist church
No comments:
Post a Comment