Report: Justice Roberts Switched Positions on Health Care Law

Updated: July 2, 2012 | 2:26 p.m.
July 1, 2012 | 3:15 p.m.

This artist rendering shows Paul Clement speaks in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, as the court continued hearing arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. Justices, seated from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Samuel Alito and Elana Kagan.   (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)

Chief Justice John Roberts switched positions on the Affordable Care Act to ultimately side with liberal justices, according to a CBS report that reveals many details concerning the notoriously secretive negotiations that go on behind the scenes in the Supreme Court.

The report cites "two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations" who say that Roberts originally sided with the four conservative justices in declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional. Those justices would have stricken the entire law, as they believed the mandate to be an integral part, but while Roberts agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under Congress' power to regulate commerce, he felt less strongly about whether the entire law should fall.

Roberts eventually went on to switch positions and side with the liberal justices, perhaps in response to increasing pressure from outside the Court to rule in favor of the law, CBS reports. Though the conservative justices tried to lobby him back, he remained unswayed, and in fact attempted to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy to join him on the decision to make the court appear more unified on the issue.

CBS also reports that Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia wrote most of the dissent, and that speculation that parts of the dissent were originally written by Roberts before he changed his mind are incorrect.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Columns
Josh Kraushaar: Against the Grain

Why Democrats Are Already Jumping Aboard the Hillary Clinton Bandwagon

1:57 p.m.
Claire McCaskill's endorsement was a bow to reality: Democrats don't want to challenge Clinton in 2016.
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

No Guarantee of a GOP Senate Majority

June 17, 2013
The disproportionate exposure for the chamber’s Democrats is very clear. But can Republicans capitalize on their opportunities?
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

Why We Lack Good Privacy Guidelines

June 13, 2013
Technology innovations have served to strip away privacy. They could also be the key to restoring it.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Hands-Free Won't Cut It

3:22 p.m.

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Consider the Opportunity Before Us

Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

June 17, 2013

Latest Response by Phyllis Cuttino: TBD

Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

June 14, 2013

Latest Response by Brigham McCown: Electric Cars and Their Dirty Secret

More Expert Opinions »
Get a trial subscription to National Journal magazine.