|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-398||11th Cir.||Mar 26, 2012||Jun 28, 2012||5-4||Roberts||OT 2011|
Disclosure: Goldstein and Russell, P.C. represents AARP as amicus curiae in support of the petitioners in this case.
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.
From Oral Argument
Merits Briefs for the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Merits Briefs for Florida et al. and the Private Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Amicus Briefs Supporting Florida et al. and the Private Respondents Regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Amicus Briefs Supporting Neither Party
Merits Briefs for Court-Appointed Amicus Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Court- Appointed Amicus Regarding Vacatur
Merits Briefs for the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Merits Briefs for Florida et al. and the Private Respondents Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Amicus Briefs Supporting Florida et al. and the Private Respondents Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.