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 Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes