SCOTUS Day 3 on the Affordable Care Act – Part 1

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Wednesday morning's argument was on the issue of "severability." For some unexplained reason, Congress did not include a common "severability" clause in the Affordable Care Act. Opponents of the Act seized upon this and tried to argue in the lower courts that this means "all or nothing": if any one part of the Act is struck down, the whole Act must fail. The Courts of Appeals divided on this issue.

It would appear from this morning's Q&A from the Justices that they are not buying the "all or nothing" approach. Court's have frequently implied severability into statutes. The Court also demonstrated no stomach for going through the ACA line by line to determine what provisions would remain should they strike down other provisions, reasonably suggesting that this is best left to the legislative function of Congress.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com has the severability argument summary. Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?:

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself. (emphasis added)

The dilemma could be captured perfectly in two separate comments by Justice Antonin Scalia — first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.”  Much of the lively argument focused on just what role the Court would more properly perform in trying to sort out the consequences of nullifying the requirement that virtually every American have health insurance by the year 2014.

The Court was presented with three mutually exclusive options: strike down all of the Affordable Care Act along with the mandate (the challengers’ position), strike down only two core changes in the way the health insurance system works (the government position), and strike down nothing but the mandate (the position of a Court-appointed lawyer). None of these options appeared to be especially appealing to members of the Court.

Congress’s capacity to react in a sensible way also came into some question, particularly from Justice Scalia and, in a way, from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom seemed to harbor doubts that the lawmakers would be up to the task of working out a new health care law if this one failed, either totally or partially. 

In other words, the Court is cognizant of the fact that our political system is broken and has little confidence that the Congress can work together in the best interests of the country, leaving millions of Americans at risk.

The transcript of the severability oral argument is here.

The argument audio is here.

NOTE: The afternoon session of oral argument will pertain to Medicaid expansion (Part 2)