“The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the health-care law is not only a huge victory for President Obama, but also a moment of leadership for Chief Justice John Roberts. The court’s mixed verdict could create problems, notably in its weakening of the law’s Medicaid provisions in the name of states’ rights. While the impact of this part of the ruling is not fully clear yet, the court may have effectively denied health-care coverage to a large number of poorer Americans,” writes Brookings’ E.J. Dionne. (Washington Post)

“The stunner yesterday was that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., joined by the Supreme Court’s four most liberal justices, wrote the majority opinion that upheld the individual mandate in President Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act, which requires Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. In an ironic twist, the chief justice simultaneously accepted the conservative argument that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce did not include the power to regulate economic inactivity, like a decision not to purchase health care,” writes Hoover’s Richard Epstein. (New York Times)

Room for Debate asks: How will the health care law unfold? (New York Times)

Politico’s Arena asks: Does SCOTUS ruling seal Obama’s victory?

“To reach this decision, Roberts had to embrace a position denied by the White House, Congress, and vast swaths of the legal punditocracy: that the mandate is a tax for the purposes of constitutional consideration but not a tax according to the Anti-Injunction Act (which bars lawsuits against taxes until after they’re levied). Roberts’s effort, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent, ‘carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists,’” writes AEI’s Jonah Goldberg. (National Review)

Taxing broccoli? “Obamacare” and being sneaky in an election year. (Washington Post)

Cato scholars react to the Supreme Court “Obamacare” ruling: