The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, with a decision likely to come in June.
On Nov. 14, the high court announced that it would consider arguments related to a well-publicized challenge to the health reform law that was originally filed in Florida. The Florida case, which was brought by a coalition of Republican attorneys general and governors from 26 states along with the National Federation of Independent Business, asserted that the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to have health insurance, violates the Constitution. The coalition of states also objected to the law’s broad expansion of Medicaid. They argued that requiring states to invest billions of dollars in an enlarged Medicaid program violated state sovereignty.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments related to the constitutionality of both the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The justices also said that if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, they will then consider whether the law can stand without it or must be struck down completely.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to accept the case. Greg Abbott, the attorney general for Texas, which is part of the case being considered by the high court, said the court’s decision to accept the case means the law is just one step closer to being tossed out.
But White House officials also think they can win. "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
Families USA, a consumer advocacy group and supporter of the ACA, issued a statement saying it is "surprised and troubled" that the Supreme Court chose to review the expansion of Medicaid. "It is particularly disingenuous for the states bringing this case to object to this expansion of Medicaid as ‘coercive,’ because the Affordable Care Act specifies that between 90% and 100% of the costs of this expansion will be paid for by the federal government," Families USA executive director Ron Pollack said in a statement. "Striking down this Medicaid expansion would jeopardize health care for millions of low-income Americans at a time when they can least afford it."
The first decision in the Florida case came in January when U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and voided the entire law. However, he did not agree with the states’ argument that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional.
Next, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta took up the case, agreeing with Judge Vinson that the individual mandate violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But in a 2-1 ruling on Aug. 12, the appeals court ruled that the individual mandate could be separated from the rest of the Affordable Care Act, allowing that law to stand.
Both the federal government and the plaintiffs in the Florida suit petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case. Court watchers had expected the justices to consider the Affordable Care Act in its current term since there have been conflicting rulings from the appeals courts on the law. While the 11th Circuit ruled against the individual mandate, other appeals courts have dismissed challenges to the law.