Obama healthcare law: two justices may decide fate

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:15pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The legal fate of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law will likely come down to two Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

That would be a familiar role for Kennedy, a moderate conservative who often has cast the decisive vote on the most contentious issues before the nine-member high court divided between conservative and liberal factions.

A Supreme Court ruling on the healthcare law, adopted by a Democratic-controlled Congress after a bruising political battle, could be a defining moment for Roberts, who was named chief justice in 2005 by Republican President George W. Bush.

"Given the deep ideological divisions over the case and the lack of precedent clearly on point, the court could easily rule either way," Ilya Somin, associate law professor at George Mason University, wrote in a recent blog post.

U.S. appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution when, in adopting the healthcare law in 2010, it required that Americans buy insurance or face a penalty.

The latest decision, handed down on Friday from an Atlanta-based appeals court, struck down that individual mandate provision, making it more likely the Supreme Court will get involved.

University of Richmond assistant law professor Kevin Walsh said the Supreme Court seemed virtually certain to decide the issue by the end of June next year. That would mean a ruling before the U.S. elections in November 2012, with the law seen as a major political issue.

Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to more than 30 million Americans without it.

"If the Supreme Court follows existing precedent, existing law, it should be upheld without a problem," Obama said in Minnesota during a town hall discussion. "If the Supreme Court does not follow existing law and precedent, then we'll have to manage that when it happens."

REPUBLICANS CRITICAL

Republican presidential candidates have strongly criticized the law as costly and evidence of intrusive government power.

Legal experts said the court's four liberals, all appointees of Democratic presidents, were likely to uphold the individual mandate. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed by President Bill Clinton while Obama named Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The experts said Justice Clarence Thomas was expected to vote to strike down the mandate, based on his past opinions, and could be joined by fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito. All three were named by Republican presidents.

That would leave Roberts, a conservative who on occasion has refused to join far-right positions taken by Scalia and Thomas, and Kennedy to control the outcome.

Kevin Russell, a Washington lawyer who argues before the Supreme Court and who has followed the healthcare law, said Kennedy has been one of the justices most protective of state power against federal government encroachment.

"If he views the mandate as invading an area of traditional state authority, I think he may be one of the least likely justices to vote to uphold it," Russell said.

Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor, predicted Roberts and Kennedy both would likely end up voting to uphold the individual insurance mandate.

He cited an opinion by Kennedy in 1995 and the expansive view that Roberts recently supported of the power of Congress under the Constitution to adopt laws necessary and proper.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; editing by Howard Goller and Mohammad Zargham)

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 (12)
Benderover wrote:
OK one not every American can afford health insurance and Obama is ignore if he thinks they can. Why is he making honest American’s who don’t break laws an outlaw? I really hope that the justice rule this new healthcare law unconstitutional.

Aug 15, 2011 5:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tigdave wrote:
So many of the working poor are already criminals in this country. Gas to get to work or auto insurance to be legal? Can’t afford medicine so you share a families perscription, ( not talking about addiction but blood presure and such). Now we will be breaking a new law as we have one foot in the street already and as we watch our real bring home shrink more and more we are demanded to pay another expense we just cant pay..

Aug 15, 2011 6:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
crickorbug wrote:
There are subsidies to help the poor afford healthcare. And before you complain about the cost of this, remember that we are obliged to give emergency room care to the uninsured, even if they can’t afford it. I’d rather catch things at the preventitive stage before the person is really sick (which is bad in and of itself) and runs up a huge bill. It’s a question of an ounce of prevention vs. a pound of care. Also the individual mandate was a Republican idea, which many Republicans would love if it weren’t part of a Democratic healthcare plan. Don’t think that liberals are crazy about being forced to buy insurance in the private sector, but single-payer healthcare is clearly off the table and it’s necessary to have (near) universal coverage in order to stop insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, legitimate or not. (If they were to eliminate the mandate and still prevent discrimination on pre-existing conditions, people could just wait until they got sick to buy insurance, which would make insurance every bit as expensive as just paying your medical bills yourself.) We live in the most powerful nation in the world with the largest economy and there is no excuse for us not to look after the health of our citizens.

Aug 15, 2011 6:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.