HEALTH CARE

Supreme Court Saves Health Reform Law

Updated: June 28, 2012 | 12:22 p.m.
June 28, 2012 | 12:21 p.m.

The Supreme Court upheld the health reform law on Thursday (Chet Susslin)

The Supreme Court upheld the health care reform law on Thursday in a ruling in which conservative Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing and spelled out ways to keep the highly controversial law within the bounds of the constitution. The ruling vindicates President Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative, even if it doesn’t stop the political debate over the sweeping Affordable Care Act.

The 5-4 ruling lets stand the mandate – the requirement that just about everyone carry health insurance or pay a fine. But the ruling calls the fine a tax, allowing the law to escape arguments that it violates the Commerce Clause of the constitution.

And the ruling, written by Roberts himself, also addresses the law’s controversial requirement that states expand Medicaid coverage to millions of more people. It says the federal government may ask the state to do so and can even pony up the cash, but it cannot withhold its share of Medicaid funds to coerce them to do it.

"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA  to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use,” the ruling reads. “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

Not all the justices were convimced. "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety,” conservative justice Anthony Kennedy writes in his dissent.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a clear, unambiguous, and complete victory for long-overdue health care reform. It sends an unmistakable message that the building of a better, fairer health care system will continue to move forward,” Ron Pollack, executive director of the pro-health reform group  Families USA, said in a statement.

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
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »
Get a trial subscription to National Journal magazine.