|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
Just in: The next Supreme Court opinion day will be next Monday. The court expects to release one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.
End of an era: Here is NBC News prez Noah Oppenheim's memo about Pete Williams' plan to retire this summer
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/