|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-393||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 Petitioners on Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners on Severability
Merits Briefs for the Respondents on Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents on Severability
Merits Briefs for the Court-Appointed Amicus Supporting Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Court-Appointed Amicus
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.