Supreme Court To Take On Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform Law

By Matt Goodman,
108296908 Supreme Court To Take On Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform Law

A U.S. flag is held by a marcher in front of the Supreme Court building. (credit: TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)

FORT WORTH (CBSDFW.COM) – Minutes after President Barack Obama signed his sweeping and hard-fought healthcare reform legislation into law in 2010, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and AGs from 12 other states filed a complaint in federal court challenging the constitutionality of a key fixture: The individual mandate.

According to the 2,400-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all Americans must have insurance or face penalties. Those who don’t have the money to pay for health insurance can apply for government subsidies.

Those who refuse that option will have to deal with those pesky penalties, which will be doled out in 2014 and must be paid on federal tax returns the next year.

Quoting from the complaint filed on March 23, 2010, “The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty.”

Since that filing, the amount of states challenging the law has ballooned to 28 –– here’s a graphic showing which, including the two that have filed their own suits apart from the original Florda v. Dept. of Health and Human Services complaint.

In the two years the law’s been written into the books, the challenge has scraped its way through a slew of lower courts.

On Monday, the complaint landed at the feet of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As the New York Times reported this morning, the nation’s highest court kicked off three days of arguments with a 90-minute discussion on whether it can even hear the case –– both sides contend that it can.

According to Times reporter Adam Liptak, an 1867 law says Americans can’t challenge a tax before it’s been collected. As noted, those penalties won’t even be issued until 2014, and the SCOTUS must decide if this means the challenge came years too soon.

On Tuesday, the Court will hear two hours of arguments regarding the contentious individual mandate. The next day, justices will spend 90 minutes considering whether the mandate is essential to the act itself.

After that, as The Texas Tribune reported Monday, the Court will tackle “the states’ question of whether Congress overextends its authority when it forces states to accept “onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding for noncompliance.””

Here’s the full docket, if you’re curious. 

Texas AG Abbott will be present during the proceedings, but isn’t scheduled to participate.

The nation’s second-most populous state has held the dubious honor of having the highest percentage of uninsured residents in the country for the past four years: In 2011, Texas sported a 27.6 percent uninsured rate, according to a Gallup poll.

As such, the Supreme Court’s decision will, obviously, mean a great deal to Texans.

Monday afternoon, Gov. Rick Perry’s office issued a prepared statement on the decision:

“Today is a landmark moment in the ongoing struggle against the Obama Administration’s continued pattern of massive federal overreach and consolidation of power, as well as the resulting erosion of individual liberties. I remain hopeful and confident that through the efforts of officials including Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Supreme Court will concur with the judgment of other federal courts and put an end to the unprecedented and dangerous overreach of Obamacare.”

Nationally, a poll by CBS News and the New York Times published Monday shows 47 percent of Americans disapprove of the health care law. Just 16 percent say they “strongly approve” of the measure while 30 percent say they “strongly disapprove.”

Head here for more information on that.


One Comment

  1. norulers says:

    Nine deadbeats in black robes (hired by the Regime) will decide if a law (created by that same Regime) is “legal” That’s the same as having a group of people (hired by the Mafia) meeting to decide if that same Mafia can charge you protection money. And people call this “freedom?”

  2. Emir says:

    , the next step should be a lyibobng effort of the state legislation to fix this broken law. I hate to come down on the side of the ACLU(I disagree with their position, I think the fact that it was a parent violating their child’s privacy is central to the case and they should never have taken this case) but the law doesn’t have anything about it in there, so what are you gonna do? Better to not have judges legislating from the bench, even if that would make the decision more just in our minds. That’s only my opinion, and I still agree that a mother has broad rights over her child’s privacy, and whatever she finds out ought to be court admissible. Just imagine if she’d overheard her daughter talking about shooting up the school? Or more specific to this case, what if her boyfriend had been talking about it? This law needs to be changed, big time. Thanks for leaving the comments open so I could ramble 😀 Cheers,M@

  3. siding cleaning says:

    Hiya very cool website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your web site and take the feeds also?I am glad to find numerous useful info here within the put up, we’d like develop extra strategies in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

Comments are closed.

More From CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Drip Pan: CBS Local App
Drip Pan: Weather App

Watch & Listen LIVE