On June 28, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health-care reform law, opening the way for the most significant expansion of government-run health insurance since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
At issue was whether Congress exceeded its authority by requiring all Americans to purchase a government-approved level of medical insurance or pay a penalty.
The issue split the country. More than half the states sued to block the law.
Ultimately, five of the nine justices agreed Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the so-called individual mandate. But in a surprising twist, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals to uphold the reform law under a different legal theory – that the penalty for failing to buy insurance was a "tax" rather than a "fine."
Given Congress's broad power to levy taxes, the chief justice said, the law passed constitutional muster.
With Mr. Obama's reelection in November, the GOP saw its hopes of repealing the law dashed for now.
– Warren Richey
Reporter's takeaway: “ ‘Toast’ is the word that came to mind as I left the Supreme Court after oral argument over the constitutionality of Obama’s health-care reform law. Burnt toast. But sometimes there is a big difference between what happens at oral argument and the court’s written opinion. That’s the lesson for me of ‘Obamacare’ at the high court.”
