|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: In Monday morning order list, the Supreme Court agrees to hear two new cases: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, and Denezpi v. United States. The full order list is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101821zor_4f14.pdf
NEW: The Justice Department, as expected, says it plans to ask the Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
NEW: Biden's commission studying proposals for Supreme Court reform has released 200+ pages of "discussion materials" in advance of its final report, slated to be issued next month. The materials are divided into five categories and are available here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/public-meetings/october-15-2021-pcscotus-meeting/
Curious: This morning the Supreme Court website had a dropdown menu option called “financial disclosure reports” (although nothing to see when you click on it). Now it’s gone
Today at SCOTUS: The Biden administration will appear before the justices asking to reinstate the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- despite Biden's campaign pledge to end the death penalty and the DOJ's recent moratorium on federal executions.
Brett Kavanaugh was back on the bench today after participating in last week's arguments remotely due to his positive COVID test. Here's the full nine-person bench, in a sketch by @Courtartist.