|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
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Good morning. It’s Monday, and it’s March!
At 9:30 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will release orders from Friday’s conference.
At 10:00, the court will consider an appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges. More from George Quillin & Jeanne Gills.
Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges - SCOTUSblog
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s Unite...
BREAKING: SCOTUS orders California’s Santa Clara County to allow churches to hold indoor services. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent. Here’s the short shadow docket order.
#SCOTUS grants emergency request from northern California churches to allow indoor worship services pending appeal, says result is "clearly dictated" by recent decision. Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf
Just in: SCOTUS opinions expected next Thursday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning, March 1, at 9:30 am, with opinions again on Thursday, March 4, at 10 am. Justices will also hear oral arguments next week, including in Arizona voting dispute on Tuesday.
Apparently all the action today at #SCOTUS was not limited to opinion announcements at 10 am. Major new cert. petition filed today challenging Harvard admissions policy. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1364962610177843210
NEW: Supreme Court asked to outlaw race-based college admissions. Group challenging Harvard admissions policy says it files appeal asking court to over 2003 Grutter decision.
SCOTUS rules against a college student who tried to sue police officers after they mistook him for a criminal suspect and tackled/beat him. The unanimous ruling involves a technical interpretation of the "judgment bar" under the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
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.