Both sides in the argument over the constitutionality of the federal health reform law agreed on one thing at the first hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court: that the justices can rule this year.
The court today (March 26), the first of three days of oral arguments, explored whether a ruling on the constitutionality of the law would be premature, since several key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act don’t take effect until 2014, according to media reports and a 91-page transcript of the hearing released by the court.
Under the provisions of the health reform law, passed in March 2010, fines for failure buy health coverage take effect in 2014, but are not reported until the filing of federal income taxes in 2015.
The justices appeared to bat down the argument against acting on the law now, proffered in a separate brief, according to a New York Times report.
The Anti-Injunction Act, passed in 1867, says that Americans cannot challenge a tax until the government has collected it.
“I know you point to certain sentences that talk about taxes within the code and this is not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said.
“Our initial submission is you don’t have to determine that this is a tax in order to find that the Anti-Injunction Act applies,” said Robert A. Long, an outside lawyer asked to argue the point, “because Congress very specifically said that it shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as a tax, even if it’s a tax penalty and not a tax.”
Congress in the PPACA called the fee for not complying “a penalty,” not a tax, which clouds the issue.
The lawyer representing the Obama Administration, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., said the govetarnment wants an answer to the constitutional question sooner. He said the Anti-Injunction Act applies in this case, but may not apply in other cases.
“Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. replied. “Tomorrow you will be back and arguing that the penalty is a tax.”
Lawyer Gregory G. Katsas, who represents the 26 states challenging the law, said he agreed with the federal government, saying the the penalty for failure to comply with the PPACA law was not the intent of the 1867 law.
The justices will consider the individual mandate exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution at its hearing March 27.
In Supreme Court, both sides agree on one part in health reform debate via IFAwebnews.com .
No related posts.
