Justices debate: Is law all or nothing?
None seems at ease picking what to keep
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ended its extraordinary three-day review of President Obama’s landmark health care overhaul seemingly more torn than ever over its fate, as conservative justices appeared ready Wednesday to simply kill the whole thing and let Congress start over.
During nearly three hours of combative arguments, several justices suggested they would be willing to scrap at least some other parts of the law if they are convinced its core requirement that Americans purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. And they questioned whether the law’s expansion of Medicaid to cover 16 million more people trampled states’ rights.
The challenge to the Obama administration’s signature domestic policy achievement is one of the most carefully watched high court cases in a generation, and one of the broadest tests ever of the federal government’s power.
The justices ended their review of the case by considering what to do if they decide to throw out the law’s insurance mandate, and whether they should also reject the Medicaid expansion. They appeared to struggle with the first question, which took on added importance after the court’s conservatives indicated Tuesday that they might throw out the mandate.
The same justices suggested Wednesday that if the mandate at the heart of the law is invalid, the rest of it should fall as well. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that having to pick and choose which parts of the statute survive would be “a more extreme exercise of judicial power” than overturning the whole thing.
The government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, urged the court to keep most of the law intact, a position the court’s liberal justices seemed more willing to accept. Justice Elena Kagan said many parts of the law don’t depend on the mandate.
“Is half a loaf better than no loaf?” she asked. None of the justices, however, seemed entirely comfortable deciding which parts of the law should be jettisoned.
Later Wednesday, the court’s conservatives sharply questioned whether the law’s Medicaid provision was too coercive because states risk losing billions of dollars in funding for the poor if they don’t agree to expanded coverage. It was unclear, however, whether they would have the votes to overturn that part of the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts said states “have compromised their status as independent sovereigns, because they are so dependent on what the federal government has done.” As a result, he said, they should not be surprised when federal money comes with strings attached.
The court’s liberals said they didn’t see how giving states money was unduly coercive. “We have never had, in the history of this country or the court, any federal program struck down because it was so good that it becomes coercive,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. Others worried whether Washington was bullying the states.
The White House expressed confidence that the law would be upheld.
Spokesman Josh Earnest said predictions based on justices’ questions are “a risky path to go down.” The justices are expected to decide the case by June.