Supreme Court Justices Signal That ACA May Survive Latest Challenge
Exchanges during two hours of arguments in California v. Texas — another legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act — indicate that even conservative members of the Supreme Court may be inclined to uphold the health law. A decision is expected in late spring.
Modern Healthcare:
Supreme Court Justices Seem Unlikely To Strike Down Full ACA
Supreme Court justices on Tuesday during oral arguments appeared unlikely to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. The full nine-member court heard extended oral arguments from four attorneys representing parties in California v. Texas, a case brought by GOP attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration challenging the entire ACA. The justices focused on issues including whether challengers had legal standing and whether the entire law would have to fall if the zeroed-out individual mandate were found unconstitutional. (Cohrs, 11/10)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Appears Ready To Uphold Affordable Care Act Over Latest Challenge From Trump, GOP
Two key members of the court — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — said plainly during two hours of teleconferenced arguments that Congress’s decision in 2017 to zero-out the penalty for not buying health insurance did not indicate a desire to kill the entire law. With that, the latest effort to derail President Barack Obama’s landmark domestic achievement seemed likely to meet the fate of past endeavors. President Trump and Republicans have never summoned the votes to repeal the measure — even when in control of Congress and the White House. And the court has been unwilling to do the work for them. (Barnes, Marimow, Goldstein and Winfield Cunningham, 11/10)
AP:
'Obamacare' Likely To Survive, High Court Arguments Indicate
But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional. “It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said. (Sherman, 11/10)
NPR:
Supreme Court Appears Likely To Uphold Obamacare
But when the lawyers seeking to have the whole law struck down began to argue, they ran into real pushback, and not just from the court's liberals. Addressing Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, [Chief Justice John] Roberts said, "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act." And with a jab at congressional Republicans, Roberts added, "I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that. But that's not our job." (Totenberg, 11/10)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Justices Question GOP States’ Case Against ACA
California and a coalition of liberal-trending states, joined by the Democratic-controlled House, defended the law, arguing that a mandate without a penalty makes carrying insurance a personal choice rather than a legal command, but that even if the mandate is unconstitutional, the balance of the 1,000-page law, including provisions protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, should stand. “It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” Chief Justice John Roberts told Texas’s lawyer, Kyle Hawkins, the state solicitor general. (Bravin, 11/10)
Politico:
5 Key Moments From The Latest SCOTUS Obamacare Showdown
Perhaps the most startling remarks at Tuesday’s arguments came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed to be complaining that he was bamboozled by Obamacare advocates back in 2012 when they argued that the mandate that individuals buy health insurance was critical to the functioning of the law. Roberts drew the ire of conservatives in that closely watched, politically sensitive case by aligning with the court’s liberal wing, which then stood at four justices, to preserve the provision. “Eight years ago, those defending the mandate emphasized that it was the key to the whole act,” Roberts recalled. “Everything turned on getting money from people forced to buy insurance to cover all the other shortfalls in the expansion of healthcare.” “But now the representation is that, oh, no, everything’s fine without it. Why the bait and switch?” the chief said. (Gerstein, 11/10)
In related news —
KHN:
California Stands To Lose Big If US Supreme Court Cancels Obamacare
Of any state, California has the most to lose if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. Health care coverage for millions of people is at stake, as are billions in federal dollars. Yet Democratic California leaders don’t have a plan to preserve the broad range of health care programs the state has adopted since it aggressively implemented Obamacare — including initiatives that go far beyond the federal health care law. (Hart, 11/11)
KHN:
Listen: The ACA In Court Again
Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KHN, participated in a discussion on KQED’s “Forum” about the arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case that is challenging whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. (11/10)
