ILNews

Supreme Court to hear Affordable Care Act challenges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In what’s expected to be a historic constitutional test over how much power the federal government has to require individual mandates for states, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.

The nation’s high court released its orders Monday following a private conference Nov. 10, indicating it would take questions from three of the five health care appeals that have been filed nationwide in the past 18 months. The justices granted certiorari in National Federation of Independent Business., et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 11-393; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., No. 11-398; and Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 11-400.

The appeals will likely be heard in March, with a decision expected by the end of the court's current term in June – just before the Republican and Democratic national conventions. No dates are set for arguments and the court has set aside  5 ½ hours to hear the parties’ arguments.

One of the main questions before the justices is the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate, the foundation of the health care reform passed in 2010, and whether Congress exceeded its regulatory power on interstate commerce in requiring that coverage. That question comes from the HHS v. Florida case. Indiana and 25 other states joined Florida as parties in that case earlier this year.

A Florida federal court judge struck down the entire law as unconstitutional and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, finding that only the individual mandate portion of the law is unconstitutional. That decision was opposite of what the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found in a separate challenge, and the 4th Circuit had previously determined it couldn’t rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate until it went into effect in 2014. The SCOTUS declined to take those two cases.

The court will examine the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the law’s other provisions, a question brought up in both the Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services and NFIB v. Sebelius cases. Those two cases are consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.

Parties are also directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit initiated by the states involving the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. One hour is devoted to that issue relating only to state application, but not how private entities such as businesses might challenge the individual mandate.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT