|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
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.