March 27, 2012
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on the Validity of PPACA
Employers and others have been waiting for months for the U.S. Supreme Court to begin the oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”).
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
This morning’s proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up the oral arguments regarding whether the 2010 health care reform law’s individual mandate is constitutional. Yesterday’s arguments focused on whether Congress has the power under the U.S. constitution to require most individuals to either have health coverage or pay a tax penalty. Today’s arguments address what the Court should do about the rest of the health care reform law if it finds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Specifically, those arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional also argue that the mandate is not “severable,” meaning that, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire health care reform law is invalid. The opposite argument is that, even if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the health care reform law should be allowed to stand and to go into effect as scheduled or as revised by Congress. The transcript and audio recording of this morning’s oral arguments can be found here.
There are additional oral arguments regarding the health care reform law this afternoon, addressing an argument that states are raising concerning the health care reform law’s Medicaid provisions.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Today marked the second day of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Today’s arguments focused on the individual mandate which is effective in 2014 and requires individuals to have health coverage or pay a tax penalty. Specifically, the Supreme Court will determine whether Congress had the power to require people in the United States to buy medical insurance. The transcript and audio recording to today’s oral arguments can be found here.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The first day of arguments focused on whether the case was even ripe for review by the Court. The main issue being whether the penalties associated with the PPACA mandates are taxes, and if they are taxes, whether the taxes have to be assessed prior to any case being litigated. While it is difficult to discern the Court’s direction from the questions, most commentators feel that the justices would not vote to avoid ruling on the substantive arguments based on the argument that the issue is not ripe for review as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act (which is the law that states that taxes cannot be challenged until after it has been assessed). The transcripts and links to today's oral arguments can be found here.
This article provided by Willis, the endorsed broker of the Columbus Bar Association.