Obama health-care law before Supreme Court
On March 26, the Supreme Court will begin three days of oral arguments over President Obama's health-care overhaul, pitting the Obama administration against 26 states that say Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. A look at the issues the Supreme Court will be considering — and how they fared under the lower courts:
Look at the:
- Pieces of the law in question
- Cases that have been appealed to the Supreme Court
Court will consider:
Individual mandate
The individual mandate requires most Americans to obtain health insurance beginning in 2014 or pay a penalty if they don't. The Supreme Court will decide if the provision is constitutional and, if not, whether it can be severed from the rest of the law. The court will also look at whether the penalty is considered a tax, meaning it cannot be challenged under the Anti-Injunction Act until it is enacted. The judges in the multi-state appeal ruled the provision is unconstitutional but severable. Two other appellate courts upheld the provision.
Timeline
(Midterms)
Constitutional
Constitutional
Constitutional
Dismissed
Unconstitutional
Dismissed
Unconstitutional
Unconstitutional
Constitutional
Constitutional
Medicaid expansion
Does the expansion infringe on state sovereignty and coerce states into spending more on Medicaid? Twenty-six states sued to strike down the law's expansion of the joint state-federal health-care program for the poor. An appeals court dismissed the states' argument that the provision would coerce states into spending more on Medicaid because most of the costs would be picked up by the federal government.
(Midterms)
Constitutional
Constitutional
Court will not consider:
Employer mandate
Does the mandate impose an unfair burden on private and state employers? Employers with 50 or more employees must provide a minimum level of health insurance to their workers beginning in 2014 or pay a fine. The district courts found in favor of the Obama administration in the two suits that challenged the employer mandate.
(Midterms)
Constitutional
Dismissed
Constitutional
Health benefits exchange
Does the requirement to set up health benefit exchanges encroach on state sovereignty? Under the law, every state must create a new kind of insurance market, called an exchange, to help certain residents buy private health coverage or the federal government will set one up for them. The provision survived one challenge.
(Midterms)
Constitutional
Timeline
(Midterms)
Court will hear:
Florida v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (a.k.a. multi-state suit)
With mixed success, Republican attorneys general and governors from 26 states have challenged the constitutionality of the law's four major provisions.
ISSUES
DISTRICT COURTS
COURT OF APPEALS
Click the bars to learn more about each piece of the law that's in question.
Unconstitutional
Constitutional
Constitutional
Constitutional
In ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and cannot be separated from the rest of the law, the district judge struck down the whole law.
Judge was appointed by a Republican 
Unconstitutional
Constitutional
The appeals court agreed that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but said the rest of the law can remain in effect.
2-1 decision 
Court will not hear this term:
Thomas More v. Obama
Both the district and appeals courts ruled against Thomas More Law Center, a Christian-oriented law firm in Michigan, and four individuals who challenged the individual mandate.
ISSUES
DISTRICT COURTS
COURT OF APPEALS
Constitutional
The district judge ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional.
Judge appointed by Democrat
Constitutional
The appeals court upheld the lower court's decision, the first time a Republican-appointed judge ruled in favor of the law.
2-1 decision
Liberty University v. Timothy Geithner
Liberty University, a Christian college founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and eight individuals challenged the individual and employer mandates.
ISSUES
DISTRICT COURTS
COURT OF APPEALS
Constitutional
Constitutional
The lower court ruled that both mandates are constitutional.
Judge appointed by a Democrat
Dismissed
Dismissed
The appeals court found that the penalties associated with both mandates amount to a tax and therefore, under the Anti-Injunction Act, cannot be challenged until the mandate is in effect. The dissenting judge found both mandates constitutional.
2-1 decision
Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius
The commonwealth of Virginia challenged the constitutionality of the individual mandate and sought a ruling on whether the federal government's requirement trumps a state law that says residents can forego health insurance.
ISSUES
DISTRICT COURTS
COURT OF APPEALS
Unconstitutional
The district judge ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but severable from the rest of the law, which could stand.
Judge appointed by a Republican
Dismissed
The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Virginia lacked the legal right to sue.
Unanimous
Susan Seven-Sky v. Eric H. Holder
A legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson filed on behalf of four individuals contesting the individual mandate on constitutional and religious freedom grounds.
ISSUES
DISTRICT COURTS
COURT OF APPEALS
Constitutional
The district court ruled against the plaintiffs, finding that the individual mandate is constitutional.
Judge appointed by a Democrat
Constitutional
The appeals court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that Congress had the authority to impose the individual mandate under the commerce clause. The dissenting judge found that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the suit from moving forward.
2-1 decision
SOURCE: Court documents; Staff reports; Supreme Court.
GRAPHIC: N.C. Aizenman, Kat Downs, Laura Stanton and Karen Yourish - The Washington Post. Published Nov. 14, 2011.
Supreme Court round-up, 2010-2011
A look at key cases, which justices agreed most -- or least -- frequently, and who was most likely to be in the High Court's majority.
Supreme Court seating game
Take our challenge to put the Supreme Court justices in their proper seats.
