The Supreme Court seems to be leaning toward ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would ensure the hearings continue this week, according to a Politico report.
The court has heard a 90-minute oral argument on whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the healthcare reform law, marking the first case in a three-day series of hearings on the law. The act holds that courts cannot hear cases against a tax until it has taken effect. Robert Long, a court-appointed attorney, argued that the act does apply, which would suspend hearings on the law until the penalty for rejecting the individual mandate becomes effective in 2015. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. represented the federal government and argued that the act does not apply.
The Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the Anti-Injunction Act, which may indicate a leaning toward hearing the case now instead of waiting three years, according to the report. Some justices questioned whether the payment assessed for noncompliance with the individual mandate is defined as a penalty or a tax.
The definition of the fine is a complicated issue for Solicitor General Verrilli, as today he argued that the fine is not a tax, while on Tuesday he will argue that it is. The difference is that today he said the fine is not a tax for the purposes of the act, and tomorrow he will argue that the fine is a tax, making the individual mandate constitutional under Congress's power to levy taxes and the legislature's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Supreme Court Begins 3-Day Marathon of Healthcare Reform Oral Arguments
Healthcare Reform's Day in Court: 7 Experts Weigh-In
The court has heard a 90-minute oral argument on whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the healthcare reform law, marking the first case in a three-day series of hearings on the law. The act holds that courts cannot hear cases against a tax until it has taken effect. Robert Long, a court-appointed attorney, argued that the act does apply, which would suspend hearings on the law until the penalty for rejecting the individual mandate becomes effective in 2015. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. represented the federal government and argued that the act does not apply.
The Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of the Anti-Injunction Act, which may indicate a leaning toward hearing the case now instead of waiting three years, according to the report. Some justices questioned whether the payment assessed for noncompliance with the individual mandate is defined as a penalty or a tax.
The definition of the fine is a complicated issue for Solicitor General Verrilli, as today he argued that the fine is not a tax, while on Tuesday he will argue that it is. The difference is that today he said the fine is not a tax for the purposes of the act, and tomorrow he will argue that the fine is a tax, making the individual mandate constitutional under Congress's power to levy taxes and the legislature's power to regulate interstate commerce.
More Articles on Healthcare Reform:
Will a Healthcare Reform Ruling Have to Wait Until 2015?Supreme Court Begins 3-Day Marathon of Healthcare Reform Oral Arguments
Healthcare Reform's Day in Court: 7 Experts Weigh-In