SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare: Read It For Yourself
The United States Supreme Court has struck down what many thought was one of the most serious challenges against The Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act for the third time on Thursday, leaving in place the broad provisions of the law enacted by Congress in 201o. The vote was 7 to 2.
The opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision threw out the challenge to the law on the grounds that Texas and other objecting GOP-dominated states were not required to pay anything under the mandate provision and thus had no standing to bring the challenge to court.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’ ” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
The mandate, the most controversial provision of the law, required that people either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, it was upheld by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, on the grounds that the penalty fell within the taxing power of Congress.
Read the SCOTUS decision to uphold Obamacare for yourself here:
obamamcare
I’m not surprised. It’s completely consistent with the Roberts court. They aren’t going to step in and settle disputes best settled by the political branches.Report
The Court rightly, I think, understands that there is not really a dispute to be settled here. Its all political grandstanding by one political partyReport
This. Roberts has busted his butt since the beginning to keep the ACA largely intact. No way was he going to let the lower courts kill it now.Report
Unless they can dismantle landmark piece of civil rights legislation, anyway.Report
So we’re at a spork in the road on health care. Trump can now unleash his long promised HC plan that will be the best ever or Rs will keep trying for quarter ass law suits to do something or other. There really are no other options.Report
Or, Republicans could finally admit that getting a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to pass the ACA originally was a win in as much as most of it was Heritage Foundation ideas. I know its crazy talk, but Republicans would be able to address their shrinking demographics without voter suppression if they’d actually take credit for their ideas in the public square. And the ACA is chock full of Republican ideas . . .Report
There’s paint all around them now and no doors near the corner they’re in. They have suckled GOTV upon the pipe of hating Obamacare as though it were a law that killed fuzzy puppies for a decade now. People will remember, even if the asses amongst the masses never really caught on that Republicans never actually cared about the policy.
Although, a generation of Republicans rallied against the Soviets and now it’s “Russia? Hey they have some really good things to teach us.” So maybe.Report
The pipehitters aren’t going to stop hitting the pipe until there is some sort of intervention.Report
Having ideas might alienate Fox News viewers. You can’t expect them go undermine their own retirement plans.Report
So, this is an overstatement of facts.
The reality is the Heritage Foundation plan was basically the exchanges and nothing else – the massive Medicare expansion, all the changes to regulations like end of pre-existing conditions, kids on plans ’til 26, lifetime limits, etc. were not part of any Heritage Foundation plan.Report
Heritage also had the individual mandate, which was recognized at the time as the sweetener to get the insurance industry on board by massively growing their policy holder base.Report
The Uniparty will continue to be the uniparty.
Trump, on the other hand, had great success increasing his demographics among the intelligent.
Apparently the intelligent can understand the difference between exaggeration and lying.Report
IANAL. The decision was based on standing, which strikes me as the most narrow kind of ruling. Am I missing something?Report
In the sense that it is not on the merits, yes, it is narrow, but in practice it greatly circumscribes the ability of state governments to bring new challenges in the courts to the ACA. They’re saying that there is no harm and if the mandate isn’t harm it’s hard to see what else would be.Report
I’ve sort of lost the plot on the Mandate –> Tax –> Suspended –> Repealed?
Was it officially repealed or is it suspended indefinitely? I suppose if it were reinstated, then TX would have standing, but then the Robert’s ruling would stand (or, Trump – pick you bad pun) that the tax is lawful?
So basically a Sisyphus lawsuit?Report
Congress changed the penalty/’tax’ to $0. Even if it was no longer $0 the 2012 holding still controls until such time as SCOTUS says it doesn’t. However I would find it shocking if they even took up the issue again, much less came to any conclusion other than following stare decisis.Report
I’d hazard that it is looking very unlikely that the penalty/tax is going to be fiddled with. The penalty was primarily in there in the first place as part of the Obama admins big to get insurance companies to sign onto the original plan. Turns out that removing the penalty but having relatively strict enrollment periods outside of which you’re on your own, is sufficient to avoid “doom loop” spirals.
And without the threat of that adverse outcome there’s simply no constituency pushing for mandates/penalties.Report
Agreed.Report
Yeah… I guess this is one where knowing who granted Cert (do we?) would probably tell the rest of the story.
With a 7-2 outcome, I’m guessing the 4 were in the majority to take it up to put it down. Or, maybe 2 changed their votes to compromise on the narrow ‘standing’ outcome to live to fight another day? And that’s the rest of the story.Report
Well, that’s the thing, I think chances of another day in court for the ACA are greatly diminished. Keep in mind all of the lower federal courts are going to be bound by this decision that the states lacked standing which is going to make it way harder for anyone to get in the door to begin with. I think the practical message is that if people really want this changed it’s going to have to go through the legislative process.Report
At one point there was a case winding its way through where one or more states was challenging a minor part of the Medicaid expansion law. The new law terminated some class of direct payments to hospitals that applied to charity care for the poor, because that money would show up as part of the expanded Medicaid coverage. The assertion in the case was that the federal government must continue the old payments in states that declined to expand Medicaid.
I probably have the details wrong on that, but does anyone know the status of that case?Report
I believe that was part of the 2012 case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._SebeliusReport
Practically I take your point… but the scenario in question is that Congress has decided to reinstate the Mandate/Tax.
Which begs the question why, if Roberts et al. ruled the Tax was within congress’ purview, was this ruled narrowly on Standing.
That is, why wouldn’t the ruling be… um, you’re bound by the ruling that says Congress can levy the tax.
I feel like there’s a key little thing that I’m missing here.Report
Maybe? I certainly can’t disprove it and absent any of the justices saying as much we’ll never know. Hell, maybe they gave Roberts this so he can step aside without a fight while Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas gut Roe/Casey.
But, naive as it may be, I do like to think they put a little more thought into than what I’m implying here. 🙂Report
The fact Roberts assigned this to Breyer is some, “you idiots, we’re not going to overturn this just because you’re mad it exists” energy from the moderately right-wingers like Roberts and Kavanaugh.Report
Yep. Which way Roberts will go can usually be determined by answering the question, “What’s best for big long-established corporations?” The ACA is a terrific deal for big corporations. A zillion new customers for Big Insurance (and except where Republicans want to mess with it, guarantees against loss). Many more people with coverage for Big Pharma and Big Hospitals. And in the long run, a way for big corporations to get out of being a group health plan first and a business second.Report
I mean, arguably severing employment and healthcare is good for everyone, not just large corporations.
The idea that if you lose your job you also lose your healthcare is one of the things that non-Americans I’ve interacted with find the most absurd about the USA (that and our gun laws).Report
I think this is basically it, then. Pair the Trump failure to repeal with this final nail in the coffin of the rights fantasy of a judicial nullification and I think you can say with confidence that the ACA is here to stay. And with only a handful of modifications they could have had in a heartbeat from Obama if they’d offered him some votes. What a fishin crime against politics.Report
Here to stay? I think everyone realizes it’s a way station. The left wants it gone as much as the right, and in this case it’s not even the great compromise that leaves everyone dissatisfied. Precedents have been established, and the direction we go from here is likely set, but this law isn’t here to stay.Report
I think that’s a good point. By “here to stay” I mean that the ACA isn’t going to be removed or replaced with anything that moves us back towards the pre-ACA state of play policy wise. If you’re a lefty you’ll probably think that’s good and if you’re a libertarian you’ll mostly think that’s bad (and who even knows what the right in general thinks on it anymore) but it is reality.Report
Rand Paul in conflicted. He think it’s slavery, but he’s against it anyway.Report