Supreme Court sets Obama healthcare arguments

WASHINGTON Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:54pm EST

President Barack Obama speaks to the Families USA's 16th annual Health Action Conference at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington January 28, 2011. REUTERS/Larry Downing

President Barack Obama speaks to the Families USA's 16th annual Health Action Conference at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington January 28, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oral arguments on President Barack Obama's sweeping U.S. healthcare overhaul will last 5-1/2 hours spread over three days from March 26-28, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

The Supreme Court last month agreed to hear the 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, one of the lengthiest arguments in recent years. There have been similar marathon sessions in a handful of big cases dating back over the past 70 years.

The court said it would hear one hour of arguments on March 26 on whether the legal challenges to the requirement that all Americans buy insurance must wait until after that part of the law has taken effect in 2014.

At issue is a federal law, the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether the requirement that Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty is effectively a tax covered by that law and can only be challenged after the penalty has been imposed.

The court said it would hear two hours of arguments on March 27 on the constitutional issue at the heart of the battle -- whether Congress overstepped its powers by adopting the insurance purchase requirement known as the individual mandate.

The Obama administration is defending the requirement as a constitutional effort by Congress to address a national crisis while 26 states led by Florida and an independent business group challenge it as an unprecedented intrusion of congressional authority under the Constitution.

On March 28, the Supreme Court said it would hear 90 minutes of arguments on whether the rest of the law can survive if the mandate is struck down.

It then will hear one hour of arguments that day on the final issue of whether Congress improperly coerced the states to expand the Medicaid program that provides healthcare to the poor and the disabled.

A ruling is expected by the end of June, in the middle of the 2012 presidential election campaign in which the Democrat Obama will seek re-election against a Republican yet to be nominated.

The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

(Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Howard Goller)

FILED UNDER:
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 (3)
barberrr wrote:
Kagan, Kagan, Kagan:
Recuse, Recuse, Recuse.

Dec 19, 2011 7:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueOkie wrote:
What a country. The states sue the federal gov’t and the federal gov’t sues the states. No wonder we cannot get anything done.

Dec 20, 2011 8:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
jocare wrote:
Can someone tell me who pays for the medical care that uninsured people can’t afford? Yes, Medicaid pays for the most poor, but who pays for those who choose to spend their money on “more important” things than health Insurance? Do I, the taxpayer somehow pay for them? Do you? Do the doctors and hospitals pay and then charge the rest of us, the insured?
In my State there is mandatory Car Insurance and I am really glad there is! Having years ago been T boned by someone who didn’t have insurance on his big truck, I realize that sometimes we have to MANDATE that people have insurance because they just don’t care about others. Is it unconstitutional for this driver to drive recklessly and hit me? What about the REST of us?

Dec 20, 2011 7:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.