Prediction time — by 9:00 Thursday morning enter your prediction. To keep this somewhat simple, include (at a minimum) the outcome on the mandate and the related insurance reforms (guarantee issue and community rating), the vote, and who writes the opinion for the majority and the dissenters and a brief rationale. If you want to weigh in on the Medicaid expansion feel free.
6-3 mandated overturned, but guarantee issue and community rating upheld. Roberts for the majority, Kennedy concurring, and Thomas with the dissent. Congress can dictate how insurance is sold and priced, is within its rights to require companies to sell to all comers, but it can’t make an individual purchase it.
Just edit the post to insert your comments next to your handle. Applogies if I’ve missed a name.
UPDATE: How to read the ruling from SCOTUSblog
NoVA: Mandate is unconstitutional based on a vote of 5-4. Based on this, the entire law goes down 6-3, as one of the liberals — Sotomayor — joins with the rest majority on the severability issue and finds that Congress did not want the rest of the law without the mandate. Roberts with the majority, Thomas with a concurrence that eviscerates the reasoning behind Wickard, and Kagan with the dissent.
ScottIn a total shock, one liberal justice (not sure which one) decides to actually read the constitution and betray the cause, sending the mandate down in flames, 6-3. Then, in October, Yankees over the Nationals in 6. A-Rod goes 0 for the series, Strausberg get the win in both National victories, including only the second perfect game in World Series history, but Robinson Cano win Series MVP honors after hitting .515.
LMS Mandate goes down 5-4 with Scalia writing a scathing critique of Obama as the majority. I read about his dissent in the immigration case, took it all the way back to the civil war and free blacks from what I heard. Ginsburg writes the dissent. I’m not sure about the rest (or even the above frankly) but I don’t really expect the rest of the law to stand as is. I’m just not enough of a lawyer (none at all actually) to know how they could frame it.
Yanks vs Angels in American League Playoffs…………..Trout saves game five for the Angels with an over the wall catch and two home runs but Weaver pitches the no hitter that clinches the AL title in six.
NoVA, what do we win if we get it right? What’s the prize?
1] Severance. Addressed only by Thomas and Scalia in their dissents.
2] Medicaid. Roberts writes majority opinion on all points. 6-3 uphold expansion, but more important to the state AGs, effectively 8 vote that the Congress cannot penalize a state for refusing the “voluntary” expansion. Breyer dissents that the states can be penalized for refusing the “voluntary” expansion. The state AGs get what they hired Clement to do.
3] Individual Mandate. Congress can dictate how insurance is sold and priced, is within its rights to require companies to sell to all comers, can’t make an individual purchase it, but can tax the uninsured, which is what Roberts says is being done. Upheld, 6-3, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. Breyer concurs but writes an opinion that Congress can make an individual purchase insurance if it is part of an overarching scheme to provide health care for all. Kagan and Sotomajor join the concurrence but RBG does not, preferring to join Roberts and Kennedy in the Opinion.
4] Anti-Injunction statute. Roberts shuts that door on a second attack in 2015. Scalia writes an attack dissent to this, suggesting that the first time someone pays the tax he should sue for a refund, because this whole scheme is an imposition on liberty.
I might change my mind, because like QB I really go back and forth on this.
Yello The insurance mandate is struck down 5-4 with Roberts writing the main opinion. Scalia’s concurring opinion mentions broccoli explicitly. Kennedy writes a separate concurring opinion undercutting Scalia and giving guidance on how a rewrite could pass muster.
Entire law stands 6-3, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Georgia just opened the door to interstate commerce with its new health insurance law, and the Court has to address it; Roberts sees the long picture and decides to go with history. Of course, I’m writing this without the benefit of having read any of the learned comments posted below, so. . .
Roberts writes the majority opinion, with Sotomayor and Ginsberg writing their own concurrences (if that’s the right term), and Scalia jumps the shark again in his dissent.
Scott–I never knew that you were such a romantic! Cano batting 0.515?!?!! 🙂
Mike Well, FWIW …
1) Anti-Injunction Act. 7-2, SCOTUS is not precluded from deciding. Roberts writes that the penalty is really a penalty and not a tax because the word “penalty” is written into the legislation. So, AIA doesn’t apply. Scalia/Thomas dissent.
2) Mandate. 6-3, mandate upheld. Roberts buys the argument that Congress can regulate the purchase of health care and that buying health insurance is the way that most health care is purchased. Since Congress has already mandated that emergency rooms must provide health care regardless of ability to pay (through EMTALA), they can assess a penalty for “costs.” The activity/inactivity argument is tackled using Judge Sutton’s formulation of self-insurance. Scalia/Thomas/Alito dissent, each writing a dissent and reading from the bench.
3) Severance. Mooted by the majority opinion upholding the mandate.
4) Medicaid expansion. 7-2, upheld. Roberts is unwilling to go back through all the Spending Clause cases and agrees with the lower courts that the expansion is consistent with Congress’ spending power. He is also unwilling to set a precedent for the application of coercion theory in this case. Scalia/Thomas dissent.
Quarterback: Upheld 5-4. Kennedy will not have the courage to do the right thing. As the Casey plurality opinion showed, he is more committed to protecting what he sees as Court legitimacy than to following the Constitution. [I have changed my mind several times recently, and may do so again! In fact, even now I am trying to imagine how he will rationalize upholding it. I would like to read all the Arizona opinions first but probably won’t have time.]
Fairlington Blade: Mandate goes down 5-4, but I’ll go with severability. Most of the law stands.
Filed under: aca, Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court | 91 Comments »