Skip to main content

“Obamacare”: U.S. Supreme
Court Hearing

Research resources for following the Supreme Court proceedings, and related public debate and scholarly research, on the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (aka "Obamacare").

LibGuide Scope

This UWM Libraries research guide was created as supplemental material for Business Management 727: Health Care Accounting, Law, and Ethics (3 cr. G) (Spring 2012.  Instructor: Robert Devita).

Critical examination of healthcare specific issues and differences from other industries: financial and accounting practice; legal requirements and constraints; ethical issues facing healthcare managers.

Keywords and Phrases



"Affordable Care Act"


"Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"


health care reform bill


Health care reform--United States  [Library of Congress Subject heading, to use in PantherCat, UW System Search, or WorldCat]


Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence [MeSH or Medical Subject Heading, to use in PubMed, Medline, CINAHL]

Hearings March 26-28, 2012

Supreme Court Begins Hearing Obamacare Challenge Monday



Six hours of oral argument will be conducted in four sessions, spread over three days.  That’s what the Supreme Court has allocated for the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

The arguments begin Monday, as attorneys representing 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and a few of its individual members square off against U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr. and one of his deputies.  Other attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court will join the fray on two issues.  Here’s the schedule and the line-up for the arguments.

Monday, March 26, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument).        MONDAY [click here]

The Issue:  Is the challenge to the Obamacare mandate ripe for a court challenge?

The 145-year-old Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) provides that courts may not hear most cases to block tax collections until the challengers first pay the tax and seek a refund.  The individual mandate in Obamacare doesn’t kick in until 2014, and one court ruled that no one may challenge it until they pay the penalty for not buying insurance in 2015. The United States no longer takes that position; it thinks the AIA doesn’t apply to the mandate penalty because it is not a tax. The challengers argue there are four other reasons why the AIA doesn’t apply.

Since the administration agrees with the challengers on the AIA, the Court appointed a private attorney—Robert A. Long, Jr.—to argue the other side.  Long will present the first 40 minutes of argument. He’ll be followed by Verrilli, who has 30 minutes allotted. Gregory G. Katsas, representing NFIB and the states, will have the final 20 minutes to argue that the AIA creates no obstacle to challenging the mandate.

Tuesday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. (two hrs. of argument)         TUESDAY [click here]

The Issue: Does the Constitution give Congress the power to compel individuals to purchase particular financial instruments?

While Monday’s session will be largely technical, Tuesday’s session is the main event.  Verrilli will argue that the Constitution’s Commerce and the Necessary and Proper Clauses give Congress all the authority it needs. Verilli will also argue that the mandate penalty is a “tax” for constitutional purposes.  The challengers are represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the 26 states, and Michael Carvin, speaking on behalf of NFIB, who will each have 30 minutes before the justices. Clement and Carvin will contend that, in imposing the mandate, Congress exceeded its authority, and that the penalty is not a constitutional tax.  In addition, they will argue that if the mandate is allowed to stand, Congress would have virtually unlimited power to require citizens to buy anything or do anything.

Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. (90 mins. of argument)    WEDNESDAY 10:19 AM [click here]

The Issue:  If the mandate must go, can the rest of the law survive?

The challengers maintain that, if the Court strikes down the mandate, it should invalidate the rest of the law as well.  The administration will argue that a few related provisions would have to go if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, but the rest of the law should remain in force.  The Court appointed an amicus counsel, H. Bartow Farr, III, to stake out a third position:  that the mandate is completely severable, so nothing else in Obamacare needs to change even if the Court gives the mandate the heave-ho. Clement will speak for the challengers and Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler will represent the administration.

Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. – (one hr. of argument)      WEDNESDAY 1:00 PM [click here]

The Issue:  Does Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and the conditions for any federal funding of it violate basic principles of federalism?

Clement will argue that the law effectively coerces states to participate in a radically more expansive Medicaid program than what they have worked under for decades.  In the early years of the expansion, slated to begin in 2014, the feds will supposedly pick up all the new costs.  But the states argue the expansion will impose massive new costs almost immediately, which will only increase in future years when the federal government decreases its payments.  Verrilli will argue that the federal government can alter the terms of the federal-state program any time it wants to and, if the states don’t care for the changes, they can just opt out of Medicaid.

Latest Updates

The Supreme Court does not allow oral arguments to be broadcast live, either on TV or radio.  For this case, the Court released an audio tape and unofficial transcript of the arguments a few hours after they conclude. 

Docket Number: 11-398-Mon[Tues]

MONDAY - click here

TUESDAY - click here

Docket Number: 11-393

WEDNESDAY 10:19 AM - click here


Docket Number: 11-400

WEDNESDAY 1:00 PM - click here