Rule of Law

How the Supreme Court Could Delay Ruling on Health Care Reform

By Adam Serwer

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, either vindicating or dealing a death blow to the Obama administration’s signature domestic policy accomplishment before the 2012 election. Or there’s a third option: The court could kick the can down the road.

The “punting” option was laid out by Judge Brett Cavanaugh, George W. Bush appointee, in the most recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which upheld the constitutionality of the law. In his dissent, Cavanaugh declined to address the merits of the Affordable Care Act, arguing instead that a law called the Tax Anti-Injunction Act prevents the courts from ruling on the issue until someone has actually been forced to pay the penalty for not purchasing health care. The act basically stipulates that in order to challenge a tax an individual must be forced to pay it first.

“The most obvious way they could delay getting to the merits of the ACA would be to find that they don’t have jurisdiction under the Tax Anti-injunction Act,” explains Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center. Since the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, and Americans without health coverage wouldn’t have to pay a penalty until they file their tax returns in 2015, it could be years before the Supreme Court actually decides the case. As Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSBlog, the court has already set aside one of the five-and-half hours scheduled for oral arguments to address the issues raised by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

That doesn’t mean however, that the court is necessarily going to punt. Before the court decides the case, “it first has to determine whether the case is properly before them,” Wydra says, so “they’d have to address [the Tax Anti-Injunction Act], even if the parties agree it doesn’t apply as they do in this case.”

Nevertheless, if the justices conclude that they don’t want to rule on a highly contentious matter with signficant poltical ramification mere months before a presidential election, the court has a clear path to avoid doing so.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
May 20, 2026

Over 440 Civil Rights, Faith, and Labor Organizations Call Department of Justice Indictment of Southern Poverty Law Center a “Naked Attempt to Weaponize the the Criminal Justice System to Silence Speech”

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
CAC joined over 440 civil rights, faith, and labor organizations calling the Department of Justice...
Rule of Law
May 17, 2026

New lawsuit filed by a group of Miami residents seeks to block “outrageous” Trump Presidential Library

CBS News
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 15, 2026

DeSantis dismisses validity of new Trump library lawsuit during Miami appearance

Miami Herald
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 17, 2026

Lawsuit challenges proposed Trump Presidential Library site in downtown Miami

Local 10 News
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 14, 2026

No Books, Two Golden Statues: Trump’s $130 Million Miami ‘Presidential Library’ Skyscraper Hit With Lawsuit

International Business Times
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...
Rule of Law
May 14, 2026

Trump Library hit with another lawsuit as Florida GOP makes more changes to the state

PantherNOW
Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the law...