Supreme Court takes up heart of Obama health law

March 27, 2012 by Jim Mannion

The Supreme Court dives into the heart of President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law Tuesday, taking up its most divisive requirement -- that Americans maintain insurance or be fined.

The nine justices appeared satisfied Monday they had jurisdiction in the blockbuster case, clearing the way for a legal review that has huge implications for the nation and the 2012 elections.

The first day of probed when lawsuits can be brought in tax cases and whether the court must wait until after Obama's Affordable Care Act enters fully into force in 2014 to consider to it.

"I think based on the arguments this morning, that the court is not likely to delay ruling on the merits until the individual mandate goes into effect," said Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center.

"They will be likely to get to the merits, and so that makes the arguments tomorrow on the mandate and Wednesday on even more important," said Wydra, who filed a brief in support of the law.

The reform would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who currently lack it, but the individual mandate is a because it requires that all Americans maintain minimum from 2014.

Although exceptions are made for certain categories of people, the government argues that the reform will unravel if people can opt out. So individuals who do not buy insurance will face penalties.

Those provisions have made Obama's greatest legislative achievement the Republicans' biggest target going into the November .

Supporters hail the law -- the most sweeping reform of the troubled US in decades -- as a major social advance, while opponents view it as an assault on individual liberties, deriding it as "Obamacare."

The divisions have made for blockbuster hearings, even though the Supreme Court is unlikely to make any rulings before June, when whatever it decides is sure to pour fuel on the election-year fire.

"This is the most important issue in this election," Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told the crowd gathered outside the court on Monday.

Frontrunner Mitt Romney has faced blistering criticism from Republican opponents over a he enacted as governor of Massachusetts that inspired Obama's reforms -- but has vowed to repeal Obama's law if elected.

At a campaign event in California on Monday, beneath a banner reading "Repeal and Replace Obamacare," Romney slammed the president's policies as "an attack on economic freedom unlike anything we have ever seen before."

Several hundred people gathered on the steps of the court Monday, brandishing placards and chanting slogans for and against the federal law, which was enacted in 2010.

"We love Obamacare, that's why we here," some chanted.

Chris Crawford, a 20-year-old political science student who said he came to witness history, said he opposed the law. "Giving the government the power to force citizens to buy something is a very dangerous precedent," he said.

Inside, the court was packed with attorneys, guests of the court like Attorney General Eric Holder, and members of the public lucky enough to get a coveted seat.

The issue before the court on Monday was whether a law called the Anti-Injunction Act -- which bars lawsuits to prevent Congress from assessing or collecting taxes -- applied to challenges to the Act (ACA).

If it does, the court would have no jurisdiction over the ACA until after people who refused to buy health insurance were forced to pay penalties sometime after 2014.

But in 90 minutes of questioning, the justices appeared to lean strongly in favor of jurisdiction, sharply questioning why the law's penalties should be considered taxes.

"It seems to make no sense to separate the punishment from the requirement," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Justice Antonin Scalia said there was "at least some doubt" about whether the penalty was a tax, and "unless it's clear, courts are not deprived of jurisdiction."

Justice Ruth Ginsburg said the act "does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue."

The government and the 26 states challenging the as unconstitutional argue the court has jurisdiction, but the had assigned its own lawyer, Robert Long, to make the case that it does not.

"There is nothing in the statute that should be treated as a tax," said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the government.

Gregory Katsas, who is representing states challenging the , said "the purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge the mandate, not the tax."

Explore further: US Supreme Court opens health care reform case

Related Stories

US Supreme Court opens health care reform case

March 26, 2012
The US Supreme Court appeared set to press ahead with an explosive review of President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law Monday at the start of three days of complex hearings.

US Supreme Court to decide Nov 10 on health care case

October 26, 2011
The US Supreme Court will decide on November 10 whether or not to take up the case of President Barack Obama's historic health care law, court sources said Wednesday.

US Supreme Court sets hearings on Obama health reform

December 19, 2011
The US Supreme Court will hear evidence challenging President Barack Obama's health care reform -- which has come under fire from Republicans -- over three days in March, a spokeswoman said Monday.

Obama asks Supreme Court to rule on health care

September 28, 2011
President Barack Obama's administration Wednesday asked the US Supreme Court to uphold his historic health care law, likely sparking an explosive legal showdown in the heat of the 2012 election.

US won't ask for review of court's health care ruling

September 27, 2011
The Obama administration said Tuesday it would not ask a US appeals court to reconsider its finding that part of the landmark health reform bill is unconstitutional.

Recommended for you

To combat teen smoking, health experts recommend R ratings for movies that depict tobacco use

July 21, 2017
Public health experts have an unusual suggestion for reducing teen smoking: Give just about any movie that depicts tobacco use an automatic R rating.

Aging Americans enjoy longer life, better health when avoiding three risky behaviors

July 20, 2017
We've heard it before from our doctors and other health experts: Keep your weight down, don't smoke and cut back on the alcohol if you want to live longer.

Opioids and obesity, not 'despair deaths,' raising mortality rates for white Americans

July 20, 2017
Drug-related deaths among middle-aged white men increased more than 25-fold between 1980 and 2014, with the bulk of that spike occurring since the mid-1990s when addictive prescription opioids became broadly available, according ...

Parents have critical role in preventing teen drinking

July 20, 2017
Fewer teenagers are drinking alcohol but more needs to be done to curb the drinking habits of Australian school students, based on the findings of the latest study by Adelaide researchers.

Fresh fish oil lowers diabetes risk in rat offspring

July 19, 2017
Fresh fish oil given to overweight pregnant rats prevented their offspring from developing a major diabetes risk factor, Auckland researchers have found.

High-dose vitamin D doesn't appear to reduce the winter sniffles for children

July 18, 2017
Giving children high doses of vitamin D doesn't appear to reduce the winter sniffles, a new study has found.

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.