Blog Home

«
»

Read Analysis Of The Supreme Court Health Reform Arguments On Health Affairs Blog



April 2nd, 2012
by Chris Fleming

Last week the Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments on the challenge by 26 states and several private plaintiffs to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the ACA’s minimum coverage requirement – sometimes known as the “individual mandate” – was authorized neither by Congress’s Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, nor by its power to levy taxes. The state plaintiffs also argued that they were being unconstitutionally coerced to participate in the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

On Health Affairs Blog, you can read posts by several noted legal experts analyzing these historic arguments. Authors include Mary Ann Chirba, Timothy Jost, Renee Landers, Wendy Mariner, Alice Noble, Marc Rodwin, Sara Rosenbaum, and William Sage (bios available with posts).

Day One: Does the Tax Anti-Injunction Act Deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the minimum coverage requirement until someone is actually penalized for violating the provision?
.

Day Two: Does the minimum coverage requirement exceed Congress’s Constitutional powers?
.

Day Three (morning): If the ACA’s minimum coverage requirement is struck down, what other parts of the law, if any, must also be voided?
.

Day Three (afternoon): Are states unconstitutionally coerced into participating into the ACA’s Medicaid expansion by the prospect of losing all Medicaid funding if they do not participate?
.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

Don't miss the insightful policy recommendations and thought-provoking research findings published in Health Affairs.

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.

Authors: Click here to submit a post.