Timeline of Supreme Court Consideration of Health Care Law this week
Monday, March 26, 2012
Timeline of Supreme Court Consideration of Health
Care Law this week
MONDAY: Is it premature for the Supreme Court to rule on
the challenge to the law's insurance?
Beginning in 2014, the law will require virtually all Americans
to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014. On
Monday the Court will consider whether this penalty is equivalent
to a tax. If so, under another law, known as the Anon Act, the
penalty cannot be challenged until it is actually levied on
someone--and the earliest that could happen is 2015. Although the
Obama administration maintains that the penalty does amount to a
tax, for technical legal reasons it agrees with the plaintiffs that
the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply in this case. As a result,
the Court has had to appoint an "amicus curiae" attorney to make
the case that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the court from ruling on
the constitutionality of the insurance requirement at this time.
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. and are scheduled for 90 minutes:
• Amicus to the Court : Robert
A. Long, allotted 40 minutes
• Representing the Administration: Solicitor
General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., allotted 30 minutes
• Representing the Law's Challengers: Gregory G.
Katsas, allotted 20 minutes
TUESDAY: Is the law's insurance requirement
constitutional?
The Court will consider whether Congress had the constitutional
authority to enact the law's requirement that virtually all
Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in
2014. (The administration argues that Congress had the right to do
so under both its power to regulate commerce and its power to levy
taxes.) Arguments begin at 10 a.m. and are scheduled for 2
hours:
• Representing the Administration: Solicitor
General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., allotted 1 hour
• Representing the States Challenging the Law:
Paul D. Clement, allotted 30 minutes
• Representing Other Parties Challenging the Law:
Michael A. Carvin, allotted 30 minutes
WEDNESDAY: If the insurance requirement is ruled
unconstitutional, should the rest of the health care law
stand?
The Court will consider whether the individual insurance mandate
is "severable" from the rest of the law. In other words, if the
mandate is found to be unconstitutional should any other provisions
in the law--or even the entire law--be invalidated as well?
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. and are scheduled for 90 minutes:
• Representing the States Challenging the Law:
Paul D. Clement
• Representing the Administration: Deputy
Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler
• Amicus to the Court: H. Bartow Farr III
WEDNESDAY: Is the law's expansion of Medicaid to cover a
greater share of the poor constitutional?
The law substantially expands eligibility for the joint
state-federal insurance program for the poor. State participation
in Medicaid is voluntary. However if a state pulls out of the
program to avoid going along with the expansion it would be
forfeiting an enormous amount of federal assistance to its neediest
citizens. At issue is whether this means the expansion amounts to
unconstitutionally coercing states to spend more on Medicaid.
Arguments begin at 1 p.m. and are scheduled for an hour:
• Representing the States Challenging the Law:
Paul D. Clement, allotted 30 minutes
• Representing the Administration: Solicitor
General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., allotted 30 minutes
Source: Washington Post
ShareThis