The U.S. Supreme Court grappled with a complex question Wednesday in the Florida-led challenge to the 2010 federal health overhaul: If the so-called “individual mandate” is unconstitutional, should the rest of the law also be thrown out?
The 2,700-page law deals with wide-ranging issues, such as expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating insurance exchanges for people to buy health coverage.
But the lightning-rod issue is whether it is constitutional to require almost all Americans to have coverage in 2014 or pay a penalty — a requirement that has become known as the individual mandate.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Florida and other opponents, argued Wednesday that other major parts of the law are connected to the mandate and that justices should reject the entire Affordable Care Act if the coverage requirement is unconstitutional.
Justice Antonin Scalia backed Clement’s argument and also said it would be hard for the Supreme Court to determine which parts of the law should be allowed to continue.
“Is this not totally unrealistic?” Scalia asked at one point, according to a transcript of the hearing. “That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
But more-liberal justices said parts of the law could stand, even if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.
In questioning Clement, they said Congress — not the Supreme Court — should be responsible for deciding whether to make changes to other pieces of the law.
“So why should we say it’s a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you (Clement) are requesting, or a salvage job?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”
The arguments came on the third day of the landmark arguments about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
The final session Wednesday afternoon centered on part of the law that would expand Medicaid eligibility.
Justices heard arguments Tuesday about the individual mandate.
