How Do You Think SCOTUS Should Rule in the Health Care Act Cases?
Next week, U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments take place in United States Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida and National Federation of Independent Business v. Kathleen Sebelius—the two cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And the stakes are high.
“If the court invalidates this law—and one of the issues is whether the entire act should be struck down—it will be the first time since the New Deal that a major federal regulatory statute has been declared unconstitutional,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote this week. “And there is little doubt that whatever the court decides could have an impact on the outcome of the November presidential election.”
The Associated Press notes six possible outcomes: the law being upheld; the law being struck down; the requirement that all Americans carry insurance being struck; the requirement that insurers must cover everyone, regardless of their health, being struck; only the expansion of Medicaid being struck, or the constitutional challenge being deemed too premature.
This week, we’d like to ask you: How do you think SCOTUS should rule in the health care act cases? If how you think the justices should rule and how you think they will rule are two different things, please explain.
Answer in the comments.
Read the answers to last week’s question: What Would You Want the Contents of a Sandwich Named After Your Law Firm or Law School to Be?
Featured answer:
Posted by Adrian Baron (aka Nutmeg Lawyer Legal Blog): “The sandwich that symbolizes my practice would be heavy on the turkey with lots of nuts. Not too much bread or lettuce. Side of my tears for dipping.”
Do you have an idea for a future question of the week? If so, contact us.
