Showing 1–50 of 139 items published in March 2012, most recent first.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act and the Obama Administration really could not have had a better week. They did a tremendous job framing their constitutional argument against the statute to the public, the lawyers on their side were brilliant, and it appears that they had a receptive Supreme Court majority.
After a lunch break, the Court returned at one o’clock yesterday for the final installment of oral argument in the health care challenges. At issue in the afternoon session was the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which expands eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state partnership that provides health care for the poor.
Oral argument in the health care cases continues to dominate coverage. On Wednesday, the Court heard argument on two issues. In the morning, it considered the severability question: namely, what part, if any, of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) survives if the individual mandate falls.
We’re so grateful to all our readers — old and new — for visiting during the health care arguments. We received just over 800,000 hits, which is more in three days than in the entire first four years of the blog’s existence.
Yesterday, the Court heard the final set of oral arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the morning, it considered the severability question – what part, if any, of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) survives if the individual mandate falls – while in the afternoon it heard arguments on the constitutionality of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Wow. So many people were looking for Relist Watch on Tuesday that it nearly crashed SCOTUSBlog. Who would have thought my little posts were so popular? I joke, of course (although as usual, you can’t tell because it’s not funny).
In a predictable decision, the Court determined that the limitations period for insider trading claims under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is not as novel as either of the parties advocated and that, instead, it remains subject to traditional equitable tolling analysis as argued by the government.
The audio file below contains what are, in our view, the most important excerpts from this mornings oral argument on the severability of the individual mandate. We will post excerpts from the afternoons argument on Medicaid expansion shortly.
The audio file below contains highlights from todays arguments relating to the Medicaid expansion. Features include a lot more mirth than a typical Supreme Court argument, as well as a summation of the entire case by the Solicitor General.
UPDATED Wednesday 7:05 pm.
Seeking a fast track for two test cases on the constitutionality of the federal law barring benefits for legally married same-sex couples, the Obama Administration this week asked the Ninth Circuit Court to go directly into review before a full 11-judge bench instead of a three-judge panel.
In the audio file below, we’ve condensed Tuesday’s arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate into approximately thirty minutes of illustrative excerpts.
Lyle’s first report on the health care morning argument will be abbreviated because of the limited break time allowed for writing. In order for reporters to be back in their seats in the courtroom for the afternoon argument, the Court staff will be able to allow perhaps 20 minutes or less for writing initial reports.
This morning we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. Although we will not have a live blog, we will post links to opinions on the blog’s home page when they become available and will follow with details and analysis as soon as possible.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument on the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kali gathered early coverage of the argument yesterday afternoon and coverage of the arguments continued to roll in throughout the night.
These photos were taken by Tom Goldstein at the Court this morning.
The Court issued three opinions this morning. Thanks to Aaron Tang for the details on today’s first and third opinions. Justice Alito delivered the day’s first opinion in FAA v. Cooper.
Paul Clement is finished. The Court was skeptical that the whole act should fall if the individual mandate is invalid. But there wasn’t any clear indication of how far the Court would go.
We are roughly two-thirds of the way through the severability argument. The government’s lawyer was finishing up when I left the building. So far it is hard to see where this one is going.
This post will be updated throughout the day. 6:10 p.m. Kevin’s “further thoughts” on severability are available from this blog. The Atlantic asks, “Did bloggers kill the health care mandate?” The bloggers at the Volokh Conspiracy respond, here and here . Reuters offers a “snapshot” of the day.
Analysis The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.
The Court is really struggling with severability. Generally speaking, the more conservative the member the more likely they were to believe that more would have to be invalidated. Justice Scalia would strike down the entire Act.
MEDICAID UPDATED at 7:13 Lyle’s completed Medicaid argument recap is here. NEW at 6:37 SCOTUSblog’s highlights from the oral argument audio are here. The transcript of the Medicaid oral argument is here. The audio is here. Tom’s update from the end of the Medicaid argument is here.
Paul Clement is done with his 30 minutes. The left is all over him for his argument against the expansion, but that is no surprise. The right was not critical but it’s too early to tell if there is actual support. That’s next.
6 hours wasn’t enough. The Court has added roughly 20 minutes to the Medicaid argument by keeping Clement up for an extra 10. So far in the SG’s argument, significant pressure from the conservatives to acknowledge some line beyond which threats to funding are coercive.
Paul Clement is concluding his rebuttal now. In the second half of the argument there were more voices, including Justice Alito, for the idea that the Medicaid expansion is coercive, but it did not seem at all a likely outcome. The questions were too abstract about general principles.
Analysis Unless a closing oration by a top government lawyer stirs some real sympathy for the poor, the new health care law’s broad expansion of the Medicaid program that serves the needy may be sacrificed to a historic expression of judicial sympathy for states’ rights.
I wanted to offer a few additional thoughts on the severability argument, supplementing Lyle’s recap. I agree with Lyle that the Justices seemed to find all the available options unappetizing in various respects, with the exception of Justice Scalia who I understood as pretty firmly convinced that the Court should avoid the complexity troubling the others by striking down the entire statute.
This morning the Court returned for the final set of arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). First up in the morning, for ninety minutes, was the question of “severability” – what part, if any, of the ACA survives if the Court holds that the mandate is unconstitutional?
Lyles recap of this mornings argument on the individual mandate is here. (NEW 7:15 p.m.) Amy’s Plain English post is here. (NEW 7:15 p.m.) Tom’s “Tale of two great arguments” is here. (NEW 5:41 p.m.) Kevin considers possibilities for a fifth vote in favor of the ACA here.
This morning the Court will hear two hours of oral argument in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, on the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. Lyle Denniston has previewed the argument for the blog.
The first day of oral argument over the Affordable Care Act brought a flurry of news coverage. Kali rounded up early coverage yesterday afternoon, while headlines continued to trickle in overnight.
These photos were taken by Tom Goldstein at the Court this morning.
(10:52am) – I left the Court to provide this update. We are halfway through the mandate argument; the SG is done. It is essentially clear that the four more liberal members of the Court will vote in favor of the mandate. But there is no fifth vote yet.
This post will be updated throughout the day. 6:40 p.m. More analysis at this blog and Slate, as well as a report from the Huffington Post. 4:30 p.m. More reports and analysis from NPR, CBS, the Christian Science Monitor, UPI, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.
I stepped out of the oral argument to provide this audio report (at bottom of page). For those who prefer reading, here is a summary of the report: Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble.
A quick update from the steps. Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.
Analysis If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive.
Kevin Russell made this report immediately following the conclusion of today’s oral argument (at bottom of page). For those who prefer to read, a summary of Kevin’s report is below.
Lyle quite rightly suggests in his analysis of the argument that Justice Kennedy seems to be the government’s best hope for a fifth vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. But it is worth at least examining the possibility of a fifth vote from someone else.
Having now had a chance to take a breath from thinking about the substance, I wanted to step back and comment on the advocates. I really only heard a couple of minutes of Michael Carvin’s argument, but I was there for almost the entirety of Don Verrilli’s and Paul Clement’s.
The Court announced orders today from its March 23 Conference. The Court granted certiorari in one case, Florida v. Harris, involving the question whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is sufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle.
In watching this mornings arguments on the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), we were looking not only for indications whether the Court would dismiss the present challenges to the Affordable Care Act as premature (the actual question up for discussion), but also for any clues on the Justices thinking about the merits of the challenge (the question up for argument tomorrow).
This morning we expect orders from the March 23 Conference at 10 a.m. Our list of “Petitions to watch” is here. We also expect one or more opinions in argued cases.
With oral arguments in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act set to begin today, the weekend’s coverage continues its heavy focus on the upcoming case.
Amy Howe and Kevin Russell are down at the Court in the bar line. Kevin took some pictures with his iPhone 4S. It seems pretty quiet and calm. Here they are: The Bar Line The Lone Protester The first person in the public line as of 7am The new first person in line as of 730am The end of the public line Is anyone under there?
These were taken by Tom at the Court this morning:
(10:46am) – Tom Goldstein: I’ve left the Court to provide an initial update. Bob Long’s argument is almost done. At this point, it seems fairly clear that there are at least five arguments to hold that the anti-injunction act is not jurisdictional or that it does not apply to a penalty like the one in the ACA.
Analysis (Final update 3:11 p.m.) When Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., commented at the end of Monday’s first day of hearings on the health care law, “We’ll continue argument on this case tomorrow,” it seemed to have a secondary meaning even if he did not intend it.
This post will be continually updated with news from today’s oral argument. Updated at 6:11 p.m. Reports on, and analysis of, this morning’s oral argument are starting to appear. Lyle’s report on the oral argument for the blog is here.