This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-ruling-health-care-live

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Supreme court ruling on healthcare law – live coverage Supreme court upholds healthcare law – live coverage
(about 1 hour later)
11.30am: Nancy Pelosi – the Democrat leader in the House when healthcare reform was passed – has a celestial reaction to the supreme court ruling:
Nancy Pelosi called Vicki Kennedy following SCOTUS ruling and said "Now, Teddy can rest."
That's ... unusual.
11.25am: ScotusBlog has a long explanation of how the Medicaid expansion decision came about – and specifically, how liberal lions Breyer and Kagan voted to allow states to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion:
The Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated. The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.
The net result: a proportion of the 16 million people who would have healthcare extended to them as Medicaid will now not receive it. How many? Someone needs to crunch some numbers.
11.20am: The Guardian's Dominic Rushe reports on the reaction on Wall Street, happy to profit from people's misery:
The Dow has dropped 155 points (1.22%) following the Scotus ruling but that's probably more to do with news from Europe – or the lack of it – than Obamacare.
There is some fallout for the healthcare industry though. Hospital stocks have soared. Hospitals have been rooting for the law to stay – more Americans with health cover means more patients. HCA Holdings was up 8.5% and THC Healthcare rose 11%. What's the opposite of ambulance chasers?
11.14am: The news is that President Obama will be speaking at 12.15pm – given his habitual lateness, let's assume 12.45pm.
Mitt Romney is holding a press conference in DC at time unknown – but probably he'll wait for Obama to speak.
Meanwhile, the anti-healthcare reform attack ads are running on cable news.
11.05am: Today's decision just goes to show how wrong it is possible to be about the supreme court. Everyone, and I mean, everyone, said that Anthony Kennedy was going to be the swing vote. Well, he voted against it en bloc. Meanwhile, George Bush appointee John Roberts saved Obama's healthcare reforms.
10.58am: President Obama is going to make a public statement within the next 45 minutes, we're told.
10.55am: The reaction inside the White House is said to be "elation" according to a CNN person standing outside the White House.
10.51am: The Guardian's Washington bureau chief Ewen MacAskill offers his instant reaction to the supreme court decision upholding the bulk of Barack Obama's signature healthcare reforms:
This is a big win for Barack Obama. The legislation that he staked the first term of his presidency on emerges from the supreme court largely intact. If he wins the election in November, then his health care reform, due to kick in in 2014, will go ahead as planned.
Polls show that opinion has remained evenly divided since its passage in 2010. But the parts of the legislation that have already been enacted are proving popular and once the rest of it is in place, the reform may become accepted and even popular in the way Medicare and Medicaid have become.
If the supreme court had gone the other way, it would have been a disaster for Obama. He would have been vulnerable to Mitt Romney's charge this week that he had wasted the first three and a half years of his presidency. Health care will be an issue in the election campaign but it will have the same impact as it would have had the supreme court gone the other way.
Romney will continue to campaign against health care reform and pledge to reverse it if he becomes president. But it is harder for him now. It would have been so much easier to mount attacks amid the wreckage of a negative supreme court decision.
The Republicans had been looking to turn Thursday into a bleak day for the Obama administration, starting with the supreme court ruling in the morning and the contempt vote against Eric Holder in the House in the afternoon. The House will vote for contempt but its impact will be lost amid the euphoria in the White House over the supreme court ruling.
10.45am: And the reaction is flooding in. Here's a statement from Speaker of the House John Boehner:10.45am: And the reaction is flooding in. Here's a statement from Speaker of the House John Boehner:
Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.
Not a gracious defeat, then.Not a gracious defeat, then.
10.39am: Here's an explanation on the Medicaid expansion inside the Affordable Care Act, which is estimated to have provided health insurance to 16 million currently uninsured lower-income people.10.39am: Here's an explanation on the Medicaid expansion inside the Affordable Care Act, which is estimated to have provided health insurance to 16 million currently uninsured lower-income people.
Under the ACA, eligibility for Medicaid was to be widened:Under the ACA, eligibility for Medicaid was to be widened:
The new law expands Medicaid to a national floor of 133% of poverty ($14,404 for an individual or about $29,326 for a family of four in 2009) to help reduce state-by-state variation in eligibility for Medicaid and also include non-Medicare eligible adults under age 65 without dependent children who are currently not eligible for the program. Children currently covered by CHIP between 100% and 133% of poverty would be transitioned to Medicaid coverage.The new law expands Medicaid to a national floor of 133% of poverty ($14,404 for an individual or about $29,326 for a family of four in 2009) to help reduce state-by-state variation in eligibility for Medicaid and also include non-Medicare eligible adults under age 65 without dependent children who are currently not eligible for the program. Children currently covered by CHIP between 100% and 133% of poverty would be transitioned to Medicaid coverage.
These changes help to provide the base of seamless and affordable coverage nationwide through Medicaid for those with incomes up to 133% of poverty and then subsidies for coverage for individuals with incomes between 133% and 400% of poverty through state-based Health Benefit Exchanges. Individuals eligible for Medicaid would not be eligible for subsidies in the state exchange. For most Medicaid enrollees, income would be based on modified adjusted gross income without an assets test or resource test.These changes help to provide the base of seamless and affordable coverage nationwide through Medicaid for those with incomes up to 133% of poverty and then subsidies for coverage for individuals with incomes between 133% and 400% of poverty through state-based Health Benefit Exchanges. Individuals eligible for Medicaid would not be eligible for subsidies in the state exchange. For most Medicaid enrollees, income would be based on modified adjusted gross income without an assets test or resource test.
Under the supreme court decision, it appears, individual states can refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion.Under the supreme court decision, it appears, individual states can refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion.
10.33am: The court's ruling on the Medicaid expansion makes today's decision somewhat reminiscent of the Arizona immigration ruling – the court has left a depth charge inside its decision.10.33am: The court's ruling on the Medicaid expansion makes today's decision somewhat reminiscent of the Arizona immigration ruling – the court has left a depth charge inside its decision.
The Medicaid expansion would have offered health insurance coverage to 16 million people. Now states apparently can make up their own minds whether or not to accept the expansion – and that means if Florida, Texas and other big states knock it back, then there will be millions of Americans who will miss out on the benefits of the healthcare reforms.The Medicaid expansion would have offered health insurance coverage to 16 million people. Now states apparently can make up their own minds whether or not to accept the expansion – and that means if Florida, Texas and other big states knock it back, then there will be millions of Americans who will miss out on the benefits of the healthcare reforms.
10.29am: On the Medicaid expansion: the court has ruled that the government can only offer a carrot in terms of higher funding, but not the stick of taking away all of a state's Medicaid funding.10.29am: On the Medicaid expansion: the court has ruled that the government can only offer a carrot in terms of higher funding, but not the stick of taking away all of a state's Medicaid funding.
States have complained that the expansion costs them money, despite the extra funding they'll receive. Now they can turn down the expansion, which offers the expansion of coverage to mainly low income people without health insurance.States have complained that the expansion costs them money, despite the extra funding they'll receive. Now they can turn down the expansion, which offers the expansion of coverage to mainly low income people without health insurance.
We'll need to see some analysis of the consequences of this decision, and which states may decide to snub their noses at the Medicaid expansion.We'll need to see some analysis of the consequences of this decision, and which states may decide to snub their noses at the Medicaid expansion.
10.28am: The history of the supreme court is that presidents make appointments and are often disappointed by their subsequent career. Has John Roberts joined the likes of Warren Burger and David Souter?10.28am: The history of the supreme court is that presidents make appointments and are often disappointed by their subsequent career. Has John Roberts joined the likes of Warren Burger and David Souter?
10.23am: There's a big silver lining here for Obamacare opponents. Here's the majority opinion on the Medicaid expansion, as written by Roberts:10.23am: There's a big silver lining here for Obamacare opponents. Here's the majority opinion on the Medicaid expansion, as written by Roberts:
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
That means that states that refuse to accept the federal government's expansion of Medicaid can't be penalised by the government – the status quo remains.That means that states that refuse to accept the federal government's expansion of Medicaid can't be penalised by the government – the status quo remains.
That's actually a tricky decision, and it can be read as a defeat for the Obama administration. It puts the ball back in the court of the states that – for whatever reason – want to reject the Medicaid expansion, which is a key part of the reform's attempt to expand healthcare coverage.That's actually a tricky decision, and it can be read as a defeat for the Obama administration. It puts the ball back in the court of the states that – for whatever reason – want to reject the Medicaid expansion, which is a key part of the reform's attempt to expand healthcare coverage.
This blows a hole inside the Affordable Care Act. Hold off popping those champagne corks.This blows a hole inside the Affordable Care Act. Hold off popping those champagne corks.
10.21am: In the detail: the supreme court appears to have also redefined the commerce clause and tightened its use. The clause's power has been trimmed by the court in recent decision, but this is another attempt to box it in further.10.21am: In the detail: the supreme court appears to have also redefined the commerce clause and tightened its use. The clause's power has been trimmed by the court in recent decision, but this is another attempt to box it in further.
10.20am: Here's the key quote to maintain the individual mandate as constitutional, from Roberts's opinion:10.20am: Here's the key quote to maintain the individual mandate as constitutional, from Roberts's opinion:
Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
That's clear, right? Me neither.That's clear, right? Me neither.
10.17am: Once again, this is a long, complex and multi-layered decision by the supreme court, and the voting may have differed on different points – so take nothing for granted.10.17am: Once again, this is a long, complex and multi-layered decision by the supreme court, and the voting may have differed on different points – so take nothing for granted.
But it appears that John Roberts joined the liberal wing in upholding the healthcare law and individual mandate. This is significant in itself and news that will sink the US conservative movement into deep gloom.But it appears that John Roberts joined the liberal wing in upholding the healthcare law and individual mandate. This is significant in itself and news that will sink the US conservative movement into deep gloom.
10.16am: Wow: it appears that the so-called swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy, actually joined Scalia, Alito and Thomas in voting against the law – and that Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold.10.16am: Wow: it appears that the so-called swing vote on the court, Anthony Kennedy, actually joined Scalia, Alito and Thomas in voting against the law – and that Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold.
Now there's a turn-up for the books.Now there's a turn-up for the books.
10.15am: Opinion seems to be that the Affordable Care Act has been upheld – but there's a lot of detail in there, so more as it comes.10.15am: Opinion seems to be that the Affordable Care Act has been upheld – but there's a lot of detail in there, so more as it comes.
10.12am: So the individual mandate appears to have survived as constitutional, not under the commerce clause but as a tax, and that Chief Justice Roberts has joined the "liberal" wing of the court on the issue.10.12am: So the individual mandate appears to have survived as constitutional, not under the commerce clause but as a tax, and that Chief Justice Roberts has joined the "liberal" wing of the court on the issue.
More important news: the Medicaid expansion is slighty limited but not invalidated by the decision. The devil is in the details but if that's broadly the case that's another big win for the administration.More important news: the Medicaid expansion is slighty limited but not invalidated by the decision. The devil is in the details but if that's broadly the case that's another big win for the administration.
No news on votes or dissents yet.No news on votes or dissents yet.
10.10am: As suggested earlier – this is a complex decision, so it's worth waiting to see what the whole decision reads.10.10am: As suggested earlier – this is a complex decision, so it's worth waiting to see what the whole decision reads.
It appears that the individual mandate may survive as a tax – but that may need further Congressional action.It appears that the individual mandate may survive as a tax – but that may need further Congressional action.
More as we get it.More as we get it.
10.08am: Hold on – while Roberts appears to have invalidated the individual mandate under the commerce clause, ScotusBlog is saying the mandate has survived as a tax. Let's wait and see how this plays out.10.08am: Hold on – while Roberts appears to have invalidated the individual mandate under the commerce clause, ScotusBlog is saying the mandate has survived as a tax. Let's wait and see how this plays out.
10.07am: Here we go: Chief Justice John Roberts is reading the decision on healthcare law now – so that means he wrote the decision – and the mandate fails under the commerce clause.10.07am: Here we go: Chief Justice John Roberts is reading the decision on healthcare law now – so that means he wrote the decision – and the mandate fails under the commerce clause.
More as we get it.More as we get it.
10.02am: The court has published its first decision, but it's about something else involving the first amendment. Oh it's the Stolen Valor act – which bans people falsely claiming they have won military honours (surprisingly common in the US, for some reason).10.02am: The court has published its first decision, but it's about something else involving the first amendment. Oh it's the Stolen Valor act – which bans people falsely claiming they have won military honours (surprisingly common in the US, for some reason).
Anyway, it's unconstitutional but Congress can redraft it. Apparently it's not illegal to lie. Thomas, Scalia and Alito all dissent.Anyway, it's unconstitutional but Congress can redraft it. Apparently it's not illegal to lie. Thomas, Scalia and Alito all dissent.
10am: While we are waiting, here's a nice photo of the supreme court justices.10am: While we are waiting, here's a nice photo of the supreme court justices.
They all have a great health insurance deal.They all have a great health insurance deal.
9.55am: Five minutes to go. There's a tiny but non-negligible chance that the court will punt on the whole issue, thanks to the Anti-Injunction Act that holds that taxes cannot be challenged in court until they are first levied. Which hasn't happened yet. But it's not likely.9.55am: Five minutes to go. There's a tiny but non-negligible chance that the court will punt on the whole issue, thanks to the Anti-Injunction Act that holds that taxes cannot be challenged in court until they are first levied. Which hasn't happened yet. But it's not likely.
But if the court did, that would be really bad for everyone's health.But if the court did, that would be really bad for everyone's health.
9.49am: Fifteen minutes to go – and when the healthcare rulings come, it's likely to be a complex one with many layers and possibly multiple dissents – as the Arizona immigration ruling on Monday showed – so beware of over-caffinated responses declaring victory for one side or the other.9.49am: Fifteen minutes to go – and when the healthcare rulings come, it's likely to be a complex one with many layers and possibly multiple dissents – as the Arizona immigration ruling on Monday showed – so beware of over-caffinated responses declaring victory for one side or the other.
The fate of the individual mandate is only one aspect, although it's obviously the biggest one. Another, perhaps more far reaching in constitutional terms, is how the court redefines the commerce clause that the government is using to justify the mandate.The fate of the individual mandate is only one aspect, although it's obviously the biggest one. Another, perhaps more far reaching in constitutional terms, is how the court redefines the commerce clause that the government is using to justify the mandate.
And then there's the so-called Medicare expansion issue, offering healthcare coverage to an additional 16 million people but from which some states are asking the court to allow them to opt out. That alone could be even more significant than a decision on the individual mandate.And then there's the so-called Medicare expansion issue, offering healthcare coverage to an additional 16 million people but from which some states are asking the court to allow them to opt out. That alone could be even more significant than a decision on the individual mandate.
9.40am: In all the political excitement over today's ruling, let's not forget what's at stake: the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.9.40am: In all the political excitement over today's ruling, let's not forget what's at stake: the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.
9.35am: In the event of the supreme court upholding the Affordable Care Act, how will the Republicans react? After the apoplexy has faded, here's what Speaker of the House John Boehner said yesterday:9.35am: In the event of the supreme court upholding the Affordable Care Act, how will the Republicans react? After the apoplexy has faded, here's what Speaker of the House John Boehner said yesterday:
If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it.If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it.
9.30am: Here's a brief history of Barack Obama's conflicts with the supreme court, starting with Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the oath of office at Obama's inauguration, Samuel Alito mouthing criticism at Obama during the 2010 state of the union address, and so on.9.30am: Here's a brief history of Barack Obama's conflicts with the supreme court, starting with Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the oath of office at Obama's inauguration, Samuel Alito mouthing criticism at Obama during the 2010 state of the union address, and so on.
9.25am: Here's one supreme court prediction that is worth remembering, by two political scientists back in November last year, who tried to model the outcome:9.25am: Here's one supreme court prediction that is worth remembering, by two political scientists back in November last year, who tried to model the outcome:
As always, predictions are hard, especially about the future (see Berra v Bohr) and especially when it isn't clear which precedents apply or which legal doctrines are likely to dominate. Thus, any specific prediction must go beyond the model.As always, predictions are hard, especially about the future (see Berra v Bohr) and especially when it isn't clear which precedents apply or which legal doctrines are likely to dominate. Thus, any specific prediction must go beyond the model.
That said, here is ours: 6-3 or 7-2 to uphold the law.That said, here is ours: 6-3 or 7-2 to uphold the law.
Respect for precedent pushes Kennedy to support the law and Roberts comes along for the ride in order to keep the opinion out of Kennedy's hands (and possibly writing an opinion that cabins the Commerce Clause more than it is now). Alito probably goes with Roberts, but seems more up for grabs. If we are wrong, expect the justices to either downplay precedent and emphasize other legal values (such as federalism) or play up the few precedents that protect state rights.Respect for precedent pushes Kennedy to support the law and Roberts comes along for the ride in order to keep the opinion out of Kennedy's hands (and possibly writing an opinion that cabins the Commerce Clause more than it is now). Alito probably goes with Roberts, but seems more up for grabs. If we are wrong, expect the justices to either downplay precedent and emphasize other legal values (such as federalism) or play up the few precedents that protect state rights.
We'll all find out in about 30 minutes.We'll all find out in about 30 minutes.
9.15am: The New York Times's Nate Silver says that no one really knows what the decision is gong to be today:9.15am: The New York Times's Nate Silver says that no one really knows what the decision is gong to be today:
[S]tudies have found that predictions made by "expert" commentators on the Supreme Court do barely any better than a coin flip and are beaten by the statistical methods (a finding that follows the poor overall track record of experts in making predictions under many other circumstances). These experts are irrationally confident about their ability to read the tea leaves, and their predictions suffer for it.[S]tudies have found that predictions made by "expert" commentators on the Supreme Court do barely any better than a coin flip and are beaten by the statistical methods (a finding that follows the poor overall track record of experts in making predictions under many other circumstances). These experts are irrationally confident about their ability to read the tea leaves, and their predictions suffer for it.
That makes me feel better that I have absolutely no clue what the result will be.That makes me feel better that I have absolutely no clue what the result will be.
9.10am: Of course you can follow all the healthcare decision news here but if you are a hard-core junkie then you can mainline the supreme court decision on ScotusBlog.9.10am: Of course you can follow all the healthcare decision news here but if you are a hard-core junkie then you can mainline the supreme court decision on ScotusBlog.
9.05am: Never one to miss an opportunity, the Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina emails supporters:9.05am: Never one to miss an opportunity, the Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina emails supporters:
Friend –Friend –
We don't know what will happen this morning. But no matter what, today is an important day to have Barack Obama's back.We don't know what will happen this morning. But no matter what, today is an important day to have Barack Obama's back.
If you're with him, donate now – before this week's critical fundraising deadline.If you're with him, donate now – before this week's critical fundraising deadline.
But don't worry, the Romney campaign will be spitting out fundraising emails soon enough.But don't worry, the Romney campaign will be spitting out fundraising emails soon enough.
9am: Right: an hour to go until the supreme court hands down its decision. It's a great day to bury bad news, as someone once said.9am: Right: an hour to go until the supreme court hands down its decision. It's a great day to bury bad news, as someone once said.
Bad news such as...Bad news such as...
Losses on JP Morgan Chase's bungled trade could total as much as $9 billion, far exceeding earlier public estimates, according to people who have been briefed on the situation.Losses on JP Morgan Chase's bungled trade could total as much as $9 billion, far exceeding earlier public estimates, according to people who have been briefed on the situation.
When Jamie Dimon, the bank's chief executive, announced in May that the bank had lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives, he estimated that losses could double within the next few quarters. But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks, as the bank has been unwinding its positions, according to interviews with current and former traders and executives at the bank who asked not to be named because of investigations into the bank.When Jamie Dimon, the bank's chief executive, announced in May that the bank had lost $2 billion in a bet on credit derivatives, he estimated that losses could double within the next few quarters. But the red ink has been mounting in recent weeks, as the bank has been unwinding its positions, according to interviews with current and former traders and executives at the bank who asked not to be named because of investigations into the bank.
Well, well, fancy that.Well, well, fancy that.
8.55am: So how is the White House preparing for the range of outcomes this morning? Three different speeches for President Obama, according to the Wall Street Journal:8.55am: So how is the White House preparing for the range of outcomes this morning? Three different speeches for President Obama, according to the Wall Street Journal:
The president has three separate speeches prepared in anticipation of the ruling on his signature legislative achievement, a person familiar with them said.The president has three separate speeches prepared in anticipation of the ruling on his signature legislative achievement, a person familiar with them said.
One of the speeches addresses a complete overturn of the law, while another is crafted as if the court strikes down the law's individual mandate but upholds other provisions. The third speech, for if the court upholds the entire law, is more celebratory, according to this person.One of the speeches addresses a complete overturn of the law, while another is crafted as if the court strikes down the law's individual mandate but upholds other provisions. The third speech, for if the court upholds the entire law, is more celebratory, according to this person.
No matter the ruling, the White House is expected to continue highlighting provisions of the legislation that are more popular than the overall law, such as the requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions or allow parents to keep their children on their plans until they are 26 years old.No matter the ruling, the White House is expected to continue highlighting provisions of the legislation that are more popular than the overall law, such as the requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions or allow parents to keep their children on their plans until they are 26 years old.
It's unclear when Mr Obama will comment on the decision. It's not on his public schedule. He is scheduled to be in the Oval Office receiving the daily presidential intelligence briefing at 10am, around when the decision is expected to be announced.It's unclear when Mr Obama will comment on the decision. It's not on his public schedule. He is scheduled to be in the Oval Office receiving the daily presidential intelligence briefing at 10am, around when the decision is expected to be announced.
8.45am: The US supreme court will today announce its decision on the Affordable Care Act, 828 days after the Obama administration's package of healthcare reforms passed into law.8.45am: The US supreme court will today announce its decision on the Affordable Care Act, 828 days after the Obama administration's package of healthcare reforms passed into law.
In the court's most controversial decision since Bush versus Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, the focus is foremost on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the provision requiring Americans to have health insurance and the main bone of contention of those who oppose the law as an unwarranted extension of the federal government's powers.In the court's most controversial decision since Bush versus Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, the focus is foremost on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the provision requiring Americans to have health insurance and the main bone of contention of those who oppose the law as an unwarranted extension of the federal government's powers.
The court's decision will be handed down shortly after 10am in Washington DC – and with no leaks or hints surrounding the decision, even experienced court watchers confess uncertainty over how the nine supreme court justices will decide the challenge to the law brought by several states.The court's decision will be handed down shortly after 10am in Washington DC – and with no leaks or hints surrounding the decision, even experienced court watchers confess uncertainty over how the nine supreme court justices will decide the challenge to the law brought by several states.
We will be live blogging the ruling, its implications and the seismic reactions that are sure to follow, no matter what the result – with the effects rippling beyond today's announcement to the presidential election to be held on 6 November.We will be live blogging the ruling, its implications and the seismic reactions that are sure to follow, no matter what the result – with the effects rippling beyond today's announcement to the presidential election to be held on 6 November.
Republican challenger Mitt Romney has pledged to abolish the healthcare reforms if the supreme court fails to do so, while the White House is said to be ready with a back-up plan, involving a series of executive orders, if the healthcare law is overturned.Republican challenger Mitt Romney has pledged to abolish the healthcare reforms if the supreme court fails to do so, while the White House is said to be ready with a back-up plan, involving a series of executive orders, if the healthcare law is overturned.
Background briefing:Background briefing:
• A beginner's guide to the healthcare ruling, by Lyle Denniston of ScotusBlog, the foremost source of supreme court intelligence• A beginner's guide to the healthcare ruling, by Lyle Denniston of ScotusBlog, the foremost source of supreme court intelligence
• The Associated Press has an excellent Q&A about the possible outcomes from today's decision and their implications• The Associated Press has an excellent Q&A about the possible outcomes from today's decision and their implications
• The New York Times has an interactive graphic to explain the ruling and its consequences• The New York Times has an interactive graphic to explain the ruling and its consequences
• Politifact.com's top five falsehoods about the healthcare law – including Sarah Palin's "death panel" claim that earned her a "pants on fire" rating• Politifact.com's top five falsehoods about the healthcare law – including Sarah Palin's "death panel" claim that earned her a "pants on fire" rating
• Follow audio excerpts and the supreme court's transcript from important points in March's hearing• Follow audio excerpts and the supreme court's transcript from important points in March's hearing
• Read the Guardian's full coverage of the US healthcare debate• Read the Guardian's full coverage of the US healthcare debate