|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-400||11th Cir.||Mar 28, 2012||Jun 28, 2012||5-4||Roberts||OT 2011|
Holding: The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” provision, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, even though the mandate has not yet gone into effect. Although the mandate is not authorized under the Commerce Clause, it is nonetheless a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Finally, the Medicaid expansion provision of the ACA violates the Constitution by threatening states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
Judgment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, 2012. The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate, and five Justices (the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) agree that the individual mandate is constitutional. Seven Justices (the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer and Kagan, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) agree that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Kagan joined except as to Medicaid expansion. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
From the Oral Argument
Merits Briefs for the Florida and the Private Petitioners Regarding Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of Florida and the Private Petitioners Regarding Severability
Merits Briefs for the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
Merits Briefs for the Court-Appointed Amicus
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Court-Appointed Amicus
Merits Briefs for the State Petitioners Regarding Medicaid
Amicus Briefs Supporting the State Petitioners Regarding Medicaid
Merits Briefs for the Respondents Regarding Medicaid
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Department of Health and Human Services on Medicaid
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.