Justices' review of health care law adds to election tumult

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's announcement Monday that it will hear challenges to the Obama-sponsored health care law opens the most important chapter in the legal battle over the law, amid the tumult of election-year politics.

A ruling could determine the federal government's power to address the most pressing social problems, specifically how to ensure medical coverage nationwide. The decision is likely to be handed down in late June, right before the Republican and Democratic conventions for the 2012 presidential election.

The main question in the dispute that's expected to be heard over two days in March is whether in requiring most Americans to buy insurance by 2014 or face a tax penalty, Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. The justices also will address whether the entire law is doomed if that mandate to buy insurance falls. They will also review a provision that expands eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor.

The health care law, signed by President Obama in March 2010, extends insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

A group of 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and individual challengers who want to avoid paying for insurance say the law would put new economic burdens on states and businesses.

The Department of Justice, defending the law, asked the court to resolve conflicting lower-court decisions so agencies can begin preparations. White House Communication Director Dan Pfeiffer expressed confidence it would be upheld. He stressed the law's benefits including that more young people now have health insurance.

Karen Harned, with the NFIB, said, "small-business owners are finally within the reach of some clarity on how this law will ultimately impact their lives."

Monday's order scheduling 5½ hours of oral arguments — a modern record for arguments on a single dispute — makes clear that the justices want to take a comprehensive look at the law. Yet it offers no new signal on how a majority might rule. Two of the more dramatic developments since litigation began last year were decisions by leading conservative appeals court judges upholding the insurance mandate.

Last week, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman in Washington found the mandate a valid use of congressional power and said judges should presume Congress acted constitutionally. Silberman, an appointee of President Reagan, echoed U.S. Appeals Court Judge Jeffrey Sutton, an appointee of President George W. Bush on the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, who last summer upheld the insurance requirement.

"They are well-respected jurists whose conservative bona fides are unquestioned who believe the mandate is constitutional," says Bradley Joondeph, a Santa Clara University law professor. "There is no way that that doesn't affect, at some level, how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy think about this."

Four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled on the law. Two (the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit) declared it constitutional. One (the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit) deemed it unconstitutional. And one (the Richmond-based 4th Circuit) said no challenge could be brought until a person was forced to pay the tax penalty.