Supreme Court to tackle controversial health care debate

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court plans to tackle the most controversial aspects of President Obama's landmark health care law today after seeming to brush aside questions about whether the law is ready for its day in court.

As they began a historic three-day review of the law, the justices weighed in, however cautiously, on issues ranging from tax law to Medicaid that are critical to the challenge.

Monday's hearing paves the way for two more days of oral arguments in a case that has played a central role in this year's presidential campaign and raises questions about the scope of Congress' powers. The challenge by 26 states and a national business consortium seeks to overturn the law passed by Congress and signed by Obama two years ago.

"Regardless of where the court wants to come out on the merits, you heard an overwhelming sense that an answer should be given, " said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who defended the law in lower courts.

Today's arguments will center on whether Congress can require people to buy insurance. The justices will focus Wednesday on the law's Medicaid expansion and on whether portions of the law can survive if the mandate doesn't.

First, however, the high court had to surmount the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act, which bars lawsuits against taxes until they are paid. If the justices apply that standard strictly to the health care law, it could delay any challenge until 2015.

"This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the court's consideration of those issues," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued, and it seemed clear most justices agreed. But that could create other problems for the government.

Several justices questioned whether the penalty under the law for not buying health insurance is a tax at all. "This is not in the Internal Revenue Code but for purposes of collection," Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Today, the government will argue that it is a tax, and therefore within Congress' authority.

"Today, you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Justice Samuel Alito said Monday. "Tomorrow, you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax."

Lawyers representing opponents of the law said those debates show the administration may have trouble making that case. "The court is not sympathetic to the government's tax argument," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Network, who wrote a brief for GOP senators.

Some liberal justices indicated they were puzzled by 26 states' contention they would be harmed by the law's expansion of Medicaid. Although Washington would pay for those newly eligible, states would have to contribute to help those already eligible.

"That does seem odd, to suggest that the state is being injured because people who could show up tomorrow with or without this law will show up in greater numbers," Justice Elena Kagan said.

As the justices weigh into the meat of the law, Tea Party opponents and Obama administration supporters are expected outside the court today to demonstrate for and against it.