The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the Supreme Court

The new case, California v. Texas, No. 19-840, was brought by Republican officials who said the mandate requiring insurance became unconstitutional after Congress in 2017 eliminated the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance because it could no longer be justified as a tax.

They went on to argue that the mandate was a crucial feature of the law, and so the entire law should be thrown out.

The challenge has largely succeeded in the lower courts. A federal judge in Texas ruled that the entire law was invalid, but he postponed the effects of his ruling until the case could be appealed. In December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but declined to rule on the fate of the remainder of the health law, asking the lower court to reconsider the question in more detail.

Officials in states led by Democrats instead asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying the justices should act to resolve the uncertainty created by the appeals courts ruling.

The law includes popular provisions on guaranteed coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, emergency care, prescription drugs and maternity care. A lawyer for Texas and other Republican-led states, supported by a lawyer for the Trump administration, argued that all of those provisions should be ended as a consequence of the 2017 change to the individual mandate.

Those arguments were largely based on a decision in an earlier Supreme Court case, in 2012, when the court upheld the laws requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the controlling opinion, which said the mandate was authorized by Congresss power to assess taxes. He was joined by what was at the time the courts four-member liberal wing.

Since the mandate no longer raises revenue, said Kyle D. Hawkins, Texass solicitor general, it cannot be justified as a tax and was therefore unconstitutional.

In assessing the narrow question of the constitutionality of the revised mandate, the justices discussed hypothetical laws that merely urged people to do things without penalizing them if they disobeyed.

Michael J. Mongan, Californias solicitor general, said that without penalties for noncompliance, such laws present no constitutional problems. As for the revised mandate, he said, it doesnt require anybody to do anything.

Assignment:

1.Research California v. Texas, No. 10-840

2. Provide the Facts of the case

3.Provide the arguments for (Pro) eliminating the Act.

4.Provide the arguments against(con) eliminating the Act

5.Provide an unbiases opinion on the matter of eliminating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)