OP-ED

Mandate On Its Way To the Supreme Court?

It may have looked like a non-event, but it was a significant one.

Monday September 26 was the last day on which the Obama administration could ask the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its three-judge panel’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was unconstitutional. The fact that the Justice Department took no action almost certainly means that its intent is to ask the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

The administration’s thinking was most likely dependent on three factors. First, given that the full Eleventh Circuit is considered even more conservative than the three-judge panel that struck down the mandate, the only advantage of a second hearing would have been to delay consideration by the Supreme Court. Against this was presumably factored the political risk of a further well-publicized rejection of the mandate providing additional ammunition for opponents of reform.

Second, the administration may still be able to delay a Supreme Court decision either by filing its request for a hearing at the last possible moment in November, or even by asking for a filing extension—something that the Court might be willing to consider, given the potential impact of a decision in the middle of a presidential election.

Third, the administration may feel that the odds are somewhat in its favor. Although the current Supreme Court is usually regarded as having a conservative majority, the Justice Department will have analyzed prior decisions favoring federal powers by, for example, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. As a result, the administration may feel more confident of winning than many observers might expect.

Meanwhile, it’s unlikely that we will know more about timing until November, but the most likely—but by no means certain—schedule is for a hearing in early 2012 followed by a decision around the end of the 2011-2012 term in June 2012. Just in time for the election!

Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies.  He is editor of Health Care REFORM UPDATE.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

4
Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
DeterminedMDBobbyGnate ogdenDr. Rick Lippin Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

It’s always a crap shoot with the gang of Nine. By the way, maybe Pelosi meant “let’s pass the bill and have 9 judges read it to find out what’s in it to finalize it’s passage.” Maybe if the bozos of Congress in DC spent a little more time reading and thinking, they wouldn’t be wasting all these judges’ time these past 9 or so months to give judicial opinions to the bill’s legitimacy or fallacy. But, asking politicians to do the responsible and ethical thing about passing legislation is like asking greedy capitalistic bastards to think about consequences/negative outcomes… Read more »

nate ogden
Guest
nate ogden

Kagan should due to her invlovement in drafting the arguments for it, should and does seldom go togerther with people like her though.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Guest

Who, if any ,will recuse if they have financial ties to healthcare industries?
Justice Thomas for sure but there may be others? It’s hard NOT to have financial ties to US healthcare?

BobbyG
Guest

Thomas will never recuse on any issue.

Kagan should on this one. I’ve seen speculation of 5-3 to uphold, Kagan recusing, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito dissenting.

There’s also the potential for a “ripening” beg-off. In general you can’t sue for “harms” that have yet to occur (e.g., “tax penalties” for failing to buy health insurance, assertions of future adverse state Medicaid budget impacts).