Today's Supreme Court hearing suggested that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy may be the deciding vote in whether the individual mandate is constitutional, according to a SCOTUS blog report.
This afternoon the U.S. Supreme Court heard an oral argument on the constitutionality of the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would require most Americans to acquire health insurance or pay a penalty. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defended the provision in the first hour, while Paul D. Clement and Michael D. Carvin argued against it in the second hour.
Justice Antonin Scalia led opposition to the individual mandate in the first hour and seemed to be supported by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., according to the report. The blog's author, Lyle Denniston, expects Justice Clarence Thomas to oppose the mandate based on the justice's negative views on broad power in Congress. On the other side, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed in favor of the mandate, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer taking the lead in its defense.
If these predictions hold true, Justice Kennedy, whose preference was more ambiguous, could be the tie-breaking vote. Justice Kennedy told Solicitor General Verrilli that permitting the mandate may fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the federal government, and that such a change would need to be justified by the Constitution — a comment that may indicate his opposition to the mandate.
Later in the hearing, however, Justice Kennedy said the health insurance market may be unique in that the approximately 40 million uninsured individuals may affect the rates of insurance and costs of medical care differently than in other industries — which seems to support Solicitor General Verrilli's argument that the mandate should remain in the law because the health insurance market is unique, according to the report.
States, Insurers Prepare Backup Plan for Health Insurance Requirement
Two Hours May Determine Fate of Healthcare Reform's Individual Mandate
This afternoon the U.S. Supreme Court heard an oral argument on the constitutionality of the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would require most Americans to acquire health insurance or pay a penalty. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defended the provision in the first hour, while Paul D. Clement and Michael D. Carvin argued against it in the second hour.
Justice Antonin Scalia led opposition to the individual mandate in the first hour and seemed to be supported by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., according to the report. The blog's author, Lyle Denniston, expects Justice Clarence Thomas to oppose the mandate based on the justice's negative views on broad power in Congress. On the other side, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed in favor of the mandate, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer taking the lead in its defense.
If these predictions hold true, Justice Kennedy, whose preference was more ambiguous, could be the tie-breaking vote. Justice Kennedy told Solicitor General Verrilli that permitting the mandate may fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the federal government, and that such a change would need to be justified by the Constitution — a comment that may indicate his opposition to the mandate.
Later in the hearing, however, Justice Kennedy said the health insurance market may be unique in that the approximately 40 million uninsured individuals may affect the rates of insurance and costs of medical care differently than in other industries — which seems to support Solicitor General Verrilli's argument that the mandate should remain in the law because the health insurance market is unique, according to the report.
More Articles on Healthcare Reform:
How the Supreme Court's Decision Will Impact Healthcare Delivery: Q&A With Dr. Jeffrey Lobosky of UCSFStates, Insurers Prepare Backup Plan for Health Insurance Requirement
Two Hours May Determine Fate of Healthcare Reform's Individual Mandate