Obama healthcare battle appealed to Supreme Court

WASHINGTON Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:56pm EDT

President Barack Obama signs the health insurance reform bill in the East Room at the White House in Washington, March 23, 2010. REUTERS/Jim Young

President Barack Obama signs the health insurance reform bill in the East Room at the White House in Washington, March 23, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jim Young

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Michigan-based legal group on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn a decision that found President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law constitutional.

In the first of several appeals likely to reach the high court, the Thomas More Law Center said it asked the justices to review a U.S. appeals court ruling last month that Congress had the power to require that Americans buy health insurance.

The group argued in the appeal that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by requiring that Americans either obtain insurance or pay a fine by 2014. It urged the court to strike down that provision.

The appeal was the first challenge of the healthcare law to reach the Supreme Court under its normal procedures. In April, the justices rejected the state of Virginia's request to review the law before an appeals court had ruled.

At least two other appeals courts are considering challenges to the law, including one by Virginia and another by more than half the U.S. states. Once the appeals courts rule, those cases are likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The law, which aims to provide medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, has wide ramifications for the health sector, affecting health insurers, drugmakers, device companies and hospitals.

Legal experts have said they expect the Supreme Court to ultimately decide whether it is constitutional, most likely during its upcoming term that begins in October.

The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit on March 23, 2010, the day that Obama signed the law. The lawsuit argued that Congress could not regulate how Americans paid for healthcare services and insurance.

The law is also likely to be a major issue during Obama's re-election campaign and congressional elections.

(Reporting by James Vicini, Editing by Paul Simao)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
Sensibility wrote:
Passage of such a dangerous law shows how tone deaf Barack Obama has been to the concerns of the ordinary citizens of this country, and with a timely decision by the Supreme Court, his re-election chances will diminish even more than they already have. If, by some chance, the law survives intact, its legislative repeal will be an important and potentially decisive issue in the election, and the people will do in a round about way what the Court can do directly.

Jul 27, 2011 11:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Intriped wrote:
If a majority of Americans do not have income to pay these premiums then how would this work? Seems to me that this is just a screen for an enhanced welfare scheme and nothing more. Middle class and upward paying for the have not in our country. What would the premiums be if I only make 10 dollars an hour/example?

Jul 27, 2011 12:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
duhs wrote:
The Greedy vs The People … who will win. Will it be the Corporations with the Republicans in their back pocket and a substantial amount of dim witted middle to upper middle class morons following along? Or will it be the educated majority? I guess that depends on who goes to the polls

Jul 28, 2011 1:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.