The U.S. Supreme Court

UPDATES noted in red: Last update, Sunday, April 1 @2:46pm

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on health care “reform” cases in three sessions on three days this week, beginning today, Monday, March 26. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case, widely expected in June of this year, is of obvious historic importance, and, naturally, of high interest.

Although we at GiN have not examined all of the cases filed, we have been generally following the legal action since the first filings. We have written articles on the subject periodically and wanted to provide basic information about the oral arguments to our readers.

From the March 16, 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Press Release:

“The audio recordings and transcripts of the March 26-28 morning sessions should be available no later than 2 p.m. The recording and transcript of the March 28 afternoon session should be available no later than 4 p.m.”

Note that the schedule listed is in eastern time.

Once the recordings are made publicly available, the Court’s main webpage will feature links to those files. The Court’s website address is: www.supremecourt.gov.

Schedule of arguments:

Note: The Supreme Court begins oral arguments at 10A.M. – the 1P.M. session listed is unusual

(See additional information, below for basic explanation of each argument)

Monday, March 26 – Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Florida – Anti-Injunction Act – 90 minutes of arguments

**Update** Monday’s audio file and transcript are available on the Supreme Court website HERE

Tuesday, March 27 – Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Florida – Minimum Coverage Provision – 2 hours of arguments

**Update** Tuesday’s audio file and transcript are available on the Supreme Court website HERE

Wednesday, March 28 – two sessions

A.M. – National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Sec. Health & Human Services and Florida v. Dept. of Health & Human Services – Severability – 90 minutes of arguments

**Update** Wednesday’s A.M. audio file and transcript are available on the Supreme Court website HERE

P.M. – Florida v. Dept. of Health & Human Services –  Medicaid – 1 hour of arguments

**Update** Wednesday’s A.M. audio file and transcript are available on the Supreme Court website HERE

Click HERE to read how Oral Arguments are conducted at the Supreme Court.

**Update** Read an article about general impressions of the oral arguments, “Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Health Care: From Outside the Chamber”

Before I came to know Linda, I was not aware of some very important fundamental things about our judicial system and the U.S. Supreme Court in particular. Since becoming better informed, I’ve realized my own ignorance is likely a failure of our education system to explain the fundamentals to every student. This lack of understanding is not helping in the effort to promote Constitutional government according to its original meaning.

Structure of the United States’ Court system – general information – click HERE

At the end of March of 2010, Linda put together a FAQ about the Attorneys’ General health care lawsuits, which has a lot of basic information in it:

“FAQ re: States’ Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Health Reform“

Some additional important points:

The appeals process is usually a narrowing one

As a case winds it way through the system, every aspect of it is not re-litigated at each level.

• Whether it be the plaintiff or the defendant, the appellant – the party who files an appeal – is looking for the higher court to overturn the ruling of a lower court.
• The appeal is sought either because the appellant believes the lower court made a mistake in the law OR made a mistake in the process of applying the law to the facts in the particular case OR both.
• In filing the appeal, the appellant is required to specifically state what those errors were, explain why and how the error was made by the lower court, and explain what the proper ruling should have been.

Consequently, briefs and arguments on appeal are focused on the errors that were allegedly committed by the trial court.  Neither party can make arguments about issues that were never presented to the trial court, even if one or both of the parties comes up with a “new” grievance against the other.  In other words, if a plaintiff in a civil case fails to raise an issue when a case is originally tried, they cannot raise it for the first time on appeal at any level.

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals

Once a case has reached the Supreme Court, it is of the most narrow nature.

Unlike other courts, the Supreme Court has discretion regarding which cases it takes. For a narrative explanation regarding why the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, see Linda’s FAQ. Here is a bullet point version, from a Wikipedia article:

• Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
• Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
• Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.  

For more information on Supreme Court procedure, click HERE for an example case

As the oldest court in the land, the Supreme Court has a long history and rich traditions.

• History and tradition are evident in the Court’s proceedings; Court terms, schedules, and procedures have changed little over the years

• Deciding (majority) opinions of the Court are written with history and tradition in mind; while often written by one Justice, majority opinions are written in the first person “we”, such as “We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution…“

A repository of basic information, including links to the statutes at issue and briefs filed in the cases, can be found HERE.

The number of oral arguments and the length of time allotted for each is very unusual

• Thirty minutes of argument for each side in a case is a long-standing limit
• Arguments for more than one case in a day

The Court scheduled arguments on an issue that both sides of the case, petitioner H.H.S. and respondent Florida (the States), agreed between themselves was not issue (see Monday, Anti-Injunction Act, below).

The Court scheduled arguments on an issue that lower courts had dismissed (see Tuesday, Medicaid, below).

The Court is…

• Clearly cognizant of the historic importance of the health care legislation at issue
• Attempting to be very thorough in examining all relevant issues in the cases
• Potentially concerned about issues of law the petitioner and respondent hoped to avoid
• Mindful that potential decisions stand to impact issues beyond the health care legislation

Monday – Anti-Injunction Act

This is the issue the Court scheduled for oral arguments despite both sides of the case agreeing the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.

This is an issue concerning the JURISDICTION of the courts.

The Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 established that a tax must first be paid in full and available remedies (file a claim for refund, and/or file a case in Tax Court) exhausted before a federal court has any authority to entertain such a case.

______________________

What this means for the cases:

The Justices will at least explore the question: is the penalty associated with the failure to comply with the individual mandate a tax? If the Court were to rule that the penalty is a tax, then the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 may / would apply.

The Court could rule that there is not standing for a case to be filed in federal court until 2015, a year after the legislation goes into effect and tax returns are filed for 2014.

Article with additional background and details: “U.S. Health-Care Debate May Derail Obama Case”

______________________

What this means for Americans:

IF the Court were to rule that the individual mandate penalty is a tax and the case can not be taken up until 2015, the health care “reform” would be implemented – along with all of its damaging effects – a mess that would be very difficult to unravel.

**Update** Read an article analyzing Monday’s arguments, “Individual Mandate Penalty a Tax? If YES – Then What?”

______________________

______________________

Tuesday – Minimum Coverage Provision

This is the individual mandate; does the Federal government have the power to compel individuals to buy health insurance?

This is the most widely understood question in the case, but with some interesting elements which we will explore at a later date.

**Update** Read an article about the number of “uninsured Americans” mentioned repeatedly throughout Tuesday’s oral arguments, “Lies, Health Care, and Uninsure-able Statistics“.

______________________

______________________

Wednesday A.M. – Severability

IF the Supreme Court were to rule the individual mandate (or any other provision) of the health care legislation unconstitutional, must the entire law be thrown out or can the rest of it stand?

• The health care legislation did not include a severability clause, which is customary.
• The petitioners – the National Federation of Independent Business and the States – will argue that since the legislation didn’t include a severability clause and the entire program depends upon the individual mandate, the entire law should be thrown out.
• The Obama Administration has shifted its position on this question; it will now argue first that the individual mandate should stand, but if it doesn’t, the program can still be implemented.

______________________

What this means for the cases:

The most notable aspect of this argument seems to be unknown by most people who are interested in health care “reform” implementation, particularly among those who are opposed.

What this means for Americans:

The Congressional Budget Office recently released revised cost estimates for health care “reform”; the original projections were $900 billion over ten years. The new estimate was $1.76 trillion over ten years. These cost estimates include the individual mandate and collection of penalties. If “reform” was implemented without these provisions, the additional costs would have to be paid for with…..?

______________________

______________________

Wednesday P.M. – Medicaid

Explanation from the SCOTUSblog:

“Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program (the largest grant-in-aid program to the States);”

______________________

What this means for the cases:

Previous courts have dismissed this aspect of the case, apparently agreeing with the Federal government’s argument that Medicaid is a voluntary program in which States are not compelled to participate and that the Federal government can change such programs (and have) at any time.

The States argue that the provisions in the health care legislation constitute coercion on the States.

______________________

What this means for Americans:

• A ruling on this issue could have wide-ranging impact. If the Court were to rule that the health care legislation’s provisions regarding Medicaid are not coercive, the only option States would have would be to implement the health care legislation or get out of the Medicaid program (an option to avoid implementing the health care legislation that has existed since the legislation was passed). That presumes that the Court would also rule that at least some portions of the health care legislation would be allowed to stand.
• If the Court were to rule that the health care legislation constitutes coercion of the States, there would very likely be impact on other Federal programs involving aid to the States.

______________________

Health Care Lawsuits: Judge Stays Order, Gives Feds 7 Days to Appeal

Whether You THINK About Health Insurance or NOT – Judge Says Government Can Regulate That

Health Care Reform Law: Will States Ask Supreme Court to Expedite Appeal?

Health Care Lawsuit Ruling: Federal Power IS Limited

Virginia Ruling Declaring Health Care Reform Unconstitutional and Social Security Parallels

Some of our related articles about health care “reform”:

Alaska Governor: No Health Care Law in AK – WHAT About Nebraska???

10 Untold Truths About Health Care Law State Officials Hope You Miss