Rule of Law

CAC Statement Following Individual Mandate Arguments At Supreme Court

Washington, DC – After oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, Constitutional Accountability Center released the following reaction:

 

“By the end of today’s arguments,” CAC President Doug Kendall said, “the thinness of the challengers’ claim became apparent to anyone listening closely, and some of the Court’s conservatives seem to recognize that the challenge to the minimum coverage provision was more rhetoric than law.”

 

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly took on the claim that those without insurance are not in the health care market and, in his final question, Justice Kennedy seemed to recognize that it is Congress’s duty to find the best solution to the health care crisis, not the courts.”

 

Added CAC President Kendall, “Paul Clement conceded that states can impose a minimum coverage provision, but then argued the federal government cannot.  But the Constitution gives the federal government power to solve national problems.  And our clients — more than 500 state legislators from all 50 states — recognize that the states cannot solve the national health care crisis alone.”

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New York v. Trump

In New York v. Trump, the First Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral and categorical decision to freeze all federal funding to programs that do not align with its policy priorities violates federal...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump

In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to dismantle the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), including by suspending all USRAP funding, violates federal law and the...
Rule of Law
March 13, 2025

March 2025 Newsletter: Ongoing Challenges and New Victories

Rule of Law
March 7, 2025

TV (Bloomberg): Could Trump Saying Musk Heads DOGE Create Legal Issue?

Bloomberg TV
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Catholic Charities Fort Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Catholic Charities Forth Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding appropriated for...