2010 Bill On Healthcare Challenged

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law in what could be a landmark case that defines not only President Barack Obama's term, but also the constitutional limits of federal power in the 21st century.

Arguments are likely to be heard in March with a decision in late June, when the 2012 presidential campaign will be in full swing.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law in March 2010 amid fierce partisan debate. The federal statute seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies to help lower and middle-income Americans buy private coverage.

The most disputed piece of the law is the so-called "individual mandate," which requires citizens to purchase health insurance or face a penalty through taxes. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, was the only one to strike down the mandate, saying Congress overstepped its authority and could not be justified by the Constitutional power to "regulate commerce" or "to lay and collect taxes."

While the appeals court only focused on the individual mandate, the justices agreed to consider whether the rest of the act should go down with it as well. A ruling on whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to require all Americans to purchase health care will be a defining decision for the John G. Roberts, Jr. court.

Underlining the importance of the case, the court scheduled five and a half hours for arguments instead of the usual one hour. A business group and 26 states that object to the legislation filed the case in question. Another challenger to the law, as well as the Obama administration, will also make appeals at the Supreme Court.

The White House affirmed its confidence in the law's constitutionality shortly after the Court announced it would hear the case.

"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.

Florida's attorney general Pam Bondi, who represented the state as lead plaintiff, voiced her approval of the Court's actions.

"Throughout this case," Bondi said, "we have urged swift judicial resolution because of the unprecedented threat that the individual mandate poses to the liberty of Americans simply because they live in this country."

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) agreed. "This misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American," he said.

Still, proponents of the law say that the Democratic-controlled Congress acted within its bounds as drawn out by the Constitution, which grants the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and to pass laws "necessary and proper" to create a functioning government.

While supporters say that this naturally applies to health care, which accounts for 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, opponents say that the power was never meant to require individuals to purchase a single product.

What the justices will do is just as uncertain. While Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer have consistently agreed with an expansive view of the commerce clause, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have not yet considered a case that offered a substantial test.

On the conservative side, Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member who has consistently voted for a limited view of the clause, while Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy have a more mixed record on the issue. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. have not publicized their views.  

Conservative groups have called on Kagan to sit out the case because she worked for the Obama administration as solicitor general. Liberal groups have said Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife has been active in groups opposed to the law.

Even as legal battles will continue well into next year, various aspects of the law have already been enacted and enforced. Those include requirements that insurance plans keep young adults on their parents' policies until age 26 and other parts that cover a range of preventative services such as birth control. Many insurers are also barred from excluding children with pre-existing conditions, a prohibition that will to be extended to all Americans in 2014.