1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:11,600
Speaker 1: We will hear argument this morning in case California versus Texas.

3
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:14,640
Speaker 1: In the most high stakes case of the term, the

4
00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:17,600
Speaker 1: justice is considered the fate of the Affordable Care Act,

5
00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:21,040
Speaker 1: the landmark law better known as Obamacare, that provides health

6
00:00:21,079 --> 00:00:24,520
Speaker 1: insurance to twenty million people. From the oral arguments, it

7
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 1: appeared that the law would survive the challenge, but the

8
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:31,560
Speaker 1: question was how on what grounds? First, the justices have

9
00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:34,279
Speaker 1: to decide whether the challengers even have a legal right

10
00:00:34,360 --> 00:00:38,120
Speaker 1: to sue, called standing, and Chief Justice John Roberts and

11
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:42,640
Speaker 1: Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh posed several hypotheticals to

12
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:47,559
Speaker 1: determine this. Let's say Congress passes a law saying everybody

13
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 1: has to mow their lawn once a week. Uh. And

14
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:52,320
Speaker 1: they even make a lot of findings about why that's

15
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,160
Speaker 1: a good thing. You know, it makes the country look neater,

16
00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 1: you get fresh air if you have to do that,

17
00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:01,840
Speaker 1: supports the lawnmower business. Um. And but the fine for

18
00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:06,400
Speaker 1: violating it is zero zero dollars. Um, do they have standing?

19
00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:11,840
Speaker 1: I assume that in most places there is no penalty

20
00:01:12,040 --> 00:01:16,760
Speaker 1: for wearing a face math or a mask during covid um,

21
00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:19,960
Speaker 1: but there is some degree of approbrium if one does

22
00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: not wear it in certain settings. Suppose Congress passed the

23
00:01:24,360 --> 00:01:27,360
Speaker 1: law requiring every American who lives in a house to

24
00:01:27,560 --> 00:01:30,680
Speaker 1: fly an American flag in front of the house. There's

25
00:01:30,720 --> 00:01:34,120
Speaker 1: no penalty. My guest is Abby Gluck, a professor at

26
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:36,720
Speaker 1: Yale Law School and the founding faculty director of the

27
00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:40,199
Speaker 1: Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy. Happy Let's start

28
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:44,120
Speaker 1: with the basics. Why is Obamacare before the Supreme Court again?

29
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:48,040
Speaker 1: So this is actually the seventh time the Affordable Care

30
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:50,520
Speaker 1: Act has been in a Supreme Court in eight years,

31
00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:53,400
Speaker 1: and it is the third time the Supportable Care Act

32
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:56,480
Speaker 1: has sased what we call an existential challenge, a challenge

33
00:01:56,520 --> 00:01:59,360
Speaker 1: to its entire being. And the reason the case is

34
00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:04,600
Speaker 1: here is that Congress in decided, after seventy failed attempts

35
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:06,720
Speaker 1: to appeal and replace the laws, that it was able

36
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: to do one thing, one symbolic thing, and that is

37
00:02:10,480 --> 00:02:15,000
Speaker 1: zero out the penalty associated with the insurance purchase requirements,

38
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:18,600
Speaker 1: the infamous mandates, the insurance mandate. This, as you might remember,

39
00:02:18,680 --> 00:02:21,799
Speaker 1: had been the focal point of the first litigation long

40
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 1: been held up there as a symbol of what anti

41
00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 1: affordable tax folks really don't like. So Congress zeros out

42
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:31,680
Speaker 1: the penalty. The mandate is no longer enforceable, and in

43
00:02:31,720 --> 00:02:34,560
Speaker 1: the real world that really has relatively little effects. And

44
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 1: the reason that has relatively little effect is that the

45
00:02:36,720 --> 00:02:39,720
Speaker 1: mandate had never really been fully enforced, the markets that

46
00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:42,920
Speaker 1: acclimated to the mandate not existing, and so by the

47
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 1: time the mandate is actually as he wrote out, the

48
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,760
Speaker 1: effect on the market is relatively little. So how do

49
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:50,720
Speaker 1: we get to the court? Well, eighteen Red States of

50
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:53,480
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice took that argument one step further

51
00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: and said, look, now the mandate is no longer constitutional.

52
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:00,400
Speaker 1: The reason the mandate is no longer constitutional is that

53
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, in an earlier case in twenty twelve

54
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:06,120
Speaker 1: and f I d. Versus abilious upheld the mandate as

55
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,040
Speaker 1: attacks to the penalty of zero. They argued, it can't

56
00:03:09,040 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 1: be attacked still relatively insignificant, given that the mandate was

57
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:16,919
Speaker 1: not really enforced. However, they weren't even further than that,

58
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: and argued that the entire Affordable Charact was so inextricably

59
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:23,640
Speaker 1: tied to the mandate that the whole two thousand piece

60
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:26,359
Speaker 1: law had to go down with it, and they might

61
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 1: have been further and said Congress told the court as much.

62
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:33,120
Speaker 1: Congressise effectively instructed the Court to strike the entire statute down,

63
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:36,640
Speaker 1: even after Congress decided not to strict to church you down.

64
00:03:36,960 --> 00:03:39,320
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a preposterous set effect that brought

65
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:42,240
Speaker 1: us to earlier. So the first question was whether the

66
00:03:42,320 --> 00:03:45,240
Speaker 1: challengers here have standing to sue, And we heard all

67
00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:48,640
Speaker 1: kinds of hypotheticals from the justice is about mowing the lawn,

68
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:52,840
Speaker 1: wearing a mask, flying the flag. What were they getting at? Yes,

69
00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: So I think it was really interesting start to the

70
00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:58,120
Speaker 1: oral argument. Um, we had all the justices in our

71
00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:00,680
Speaker 1: first line of question. We're asking these stand main questions.

72
00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:03,440
Speaker 1: And so while everyone who's sort of listening in waiting

73
00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 1: to get to the consequential question of will be a

74
00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:10,200
Speaker 1: a survive Uh, the Court took the entire time for

75
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:13,680
Speaker 1: the California Solicitor General to spend on the threshold question

76
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:16,279
Speaker 1: of standing. So why is that important? First of all,

77
00:04:16,279 --> 00:04:19,799
Speaker 1: standing is a threshold question. If the parties aren't injured

78
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:22,760
Speaker 1: deficients to bring the case, the case goes away. So

79
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:25,679
Speaker 1: it's important that the courts from the time on that second,

80
00:04:25,880 --> 00:04:28,600
Speaker 1: you've got to remember that these standing issues are important

81
00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:31,760
Speaker 1: to the court beyond the context of the Affordable Care Act.

82
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:35,400
Speaker 1: Whatever happened to the Affordable Care Act this year, UM

83
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:37,800
Speaker 1: may well be tied just to the Affordable Care Act.

84
00:04:37,839 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: Of course, if they affirm the presumption of sever ability,

85
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:44,440
Speaker 1: that's very important. But there are important standing issues about

86
00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:47,920
Speaker 1: the ability of states to bring cases and what kind

87
00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: of injury individuals need to bring cases, and the Court

88
00:04:50,600 --> 00:04:53,279
Speaker 1: cares about those issues a lot in the long term.

89
00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: So I was not surprising to the justices, uh, focusing

90
00:04:57,360 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 1: on that for the first round of questions. What was

91
00:04:59,480 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: the meaning of all those questions? You're right, there are

92
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:05,000
Speaker 1: a lot of interesting hypothetical where if there's a requirement

93
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:07,200
Speaker 1: that you were a mask, but there's no penalty to

94
00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:09,719
Speaker 1: enforce it. Where if there's a requirement to everybody knows

95
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:12,120
Speaker 1: their lawns and there's no penalty to enforce it, and

96
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 1: so on. And when they were trying to get at

97
00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:19,520
Speaker 1: was the question of um, whether you could be sufficiently

98
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:24,240
Speaker 1: injured by failing to obey a requirement that doesn't have

99
00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:27,920
Speaker 1: an enforcement provision. So an example that the Chief Justice

100
00:05:27,960 --> 00:05:32,159
Speaker 1: gave was, uh, if you decided if you were then asked,

101
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:35,440
Speaker 1: have you ever broken a law on an employment form

102
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 1: and you decided to say not to mow your lawn? Um,

103
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:40,560
Speaker 1: would you have to check the box to say yes,

104
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,599
Speaker 1: I wrote the law or not? And they were trying

105
00:05:43,640 --> 00:05:47,040
Speaker 1: to use those hypotheticals to get the question about whether

106
00:05:47,120 --> 00:05:51,320
Speaker 1: an unenforceable requirement which is how the justice were describing

107
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 1: as for those hypotheticals, would be sufficient to hook injury

108
00:05:55,440 --> 00:05:59,600
Speaker 1: onto for purpose of standing, knowing that you can't definitively

109
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:03,400
Speaker 1: ten from the justices questions, do you think that there

110
00:06:03,400 --> 00:06:06,560
Speaker 1: are enough votes to say that there is standing and

111
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:10,040
Speaker 1: they can go to the merits question? So I think

112
00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:12,440
Speaker 1: that we don't know how the court is going to

113
00:06:13,279 --> 00:06:16,240
Speaker 1: rule on standing. There were so many different questions going

114
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:19,440
Speaker 1: in so many different areas that it's very hard to tell.

115
00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:24,479
Speaker 1: If I were a betting person, I would that slightly,

116
00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:26,560
Speaker 1: although I've never been on the court to say that

117
00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:30,000
Speaker 1: the Court will get to the Merritt's question, because there

118
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:33,960
Speaker 1: did seem to be enough justices that were interested, uh

119
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:36,160
Speaker 1: in getting to the merriage question. And in fact, and

120
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:39,800
Speaker 1: as we'll talk about in upholding the Affordable Care Act.

121
00:06:39,960 --> 00:06:42,680
Speaker 1: But there is one pretty significant piece of the standing

122
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:46,480
Speaker 1: argument um which I think is relatively important, and it's

123
00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:49,360
Speaker 1: just the argument that the Department of Justice is making

124
00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:53,960
Speaker 1: it which there was effectively trying to bootstrap standing by

125
00:06:54,080 --> 00:06:59,000
Speaker 1: using the entire Affordable Care Acts to challenge one particular provision.

126
00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:02,359
Speaker 1: So based me the day argument is because some of

127
00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:06,400
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs were harmed by some provisions in the Affordable

128
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 1: Care Act, they can then argue that because all of

129
00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:11,920
Speaker 1: the provisions of the Affordable Character are tied together, that

130
00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 1: they're inseparable. That allows them to get into courts to

131
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:21,160
Speaker 1: argue that demandated are constitutional, and therefore all the provisions,

132
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:24,240
Speaker 1: including the one that offends them, will be struck down.

133
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: And just the So the mayor says, well, that's really

134
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:32,200
Speaker 1: your argument. Shouldn't they have just challenged the provision that

135
00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:35,040
Speaker 1: they don't like. Why are they trying to come into

136
00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:38,360
Speaker 1: court through the back door of arguing the whole statute

137
00:07:38,400 --> 00:07:42,520
Speaker 1: is inextriculably tied together, so I can therefore challenge anything

138
00:07:42,560 --> 00:07:45,800
Speaker 1: I want right to bring the whole statute down. So

139
00:07:46,320 --> 00:07:48,200
Speaker 1: just to so do majors sort of call them on that,

140
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:51,480
Speaker 1: I think just as Thomas is very, very worried about

141
00:07:51,480 --> 00:07:55,880
Speaker 1: this idea of thinking about the statute as inseparable, as

142
00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:59,040
Speaker 1: a single coherent unit that can't be broken apart for

143
00:07:59,120 --> 00:08:02,040
Speaker 1: purposes of the stand. The youngquery, because you saw how

144
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:04,760
Speaker 1: that could just open up and explode This idea of

145
00:08:04,840 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 1: articles were standing, would make it very easy for lit

146
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:11,560
Speaker 1: again to get into courts of challenge thing by bootstepping

147
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 1: arguments on the dickerent positions that had no harmful effect

148
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: on them whatsoever. When the Justice is turned to considering

149
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:21,120
Speaker 1: the merits of the case and whether the individual mandate

150
00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:25,000
Speaker 1: is still constitutional after Congress zero and out the penalty,

151
00:08:25,360 --> 00:08:29,560
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts questioned former Solicitor General Donald Vailli,

152
00:08:29,760 --> 00:08:32,880
Speaker 1: who now represents the House, about his apparent change of

153
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:39,120
Speaker 1: position since the arguments in. But now the representation is

154
00:08:39,160 --> 00:08:43,440
Speaker 1: that who know everything's fine without it? Uh? Why why

155
00:08:43,480 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 1: de bate and switched? And was was Congress wrong when

156
00:08:46,760 --> 00:08:49,440
Speaker 1: it said that the mandate was the key to the

157
00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:53,480
Speaker 1: whole thing that we spent spent all that time talking

158
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:57,040
Speaker 1: about broccoli for nothing? Justice Steven Bryer pointed to many

159
00:08:57,120 --> 00:08:59,679
Speaker 1: laws that tell the public to do things without any

160
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:03,480
Speaker 1: horseman provisions and he pressed the Texas Solicitor General to

161
00:09:03,559 --> 00:09:08,000
Speaker 1: explain why those statutes aren't now open to challenge. World

162
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:13,840
Speaker 1: War One defense statutes, buy war bonds, an environmental statute

163
00:09:14,360 --> 00:09:19,040
Speaker 1: plant a tree, a one of a thousand statutes commemorating

164
00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:24,040
Speaker 1: something beautiful, city's day, clean up the yard. Are all

165
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:28,720
Speaker 1: those statutes suddenly open to challenge? I've been talking to

166
00:09:28,760 --> 00:09:31,960
Speaker 1: Abbey Gluck, a professor at Yale Law School. Abbey, where

167
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:34,800
Speaker 1: do you think that justice has stood on the constitutionality

168
00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:38,520
Speaker 1: of the individual mandate? Which interesting about the discussion on

169
00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:41,520
Speaker 1: the mandate is that, again, this is more an area

170
00:09:41,559 --> 00:09:44,559
Speaker 1: in which I don't think we can predict if a

171
00:09:44,640 --> 00:09:48,160
Speaker 1: mandate itself will survive. Uh As I said before, I

172
00:09:48,200 --> 00:09:50,240
Speaker 1: do think it's more likely than that if the rest

173
00:09:50,240 --> 00:09:52,360
Speaker 1: of the Affordable Care Act will survive. And that's a

174
00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 1: consequential question in the case, because I said earlier, mandate

175
00:09:56,679 --> 00:09:58,640
Speaker 1: has not been fully enforced, So whether or not a

176
00:09:58,679 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 1: survived has relatively about practical significance. But the oil argument

177
00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:06,560
Speaker 1: was basically a debate about different kinds of scenarios. One

178
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:10,600
Speaker 1: scenario is could this possibly still be attacked? There's a

179
00:10:10,640 --> 00:10:14,720
Speaker 1: really interesting set of questions um that you know, rotated

180
00:10:14,760 --> 00:10:20,199
Speaker 1: among course search and Alito and Justice of Mayor, among others,

181
00:10:20,280 --> 00:10:23,839
Speaker 1: where they were exploring the idea of whether attack with

182
00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:26,280
Speaker 1: a number of zero on it could still be attacked

183
00:10:26,320 --> 00:10:30,280
Speaker 1: in justice of mariority is some really helpful examples. For instance,

184
00:10:30,280 --> 00:10:35,200
Speaker 1: she asked the lawyers, well, what if Congress set attacks

185
00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:37,880
Speaker 1: and then phased it out down to zero over a

186
00:10:37,880 --> 00:10:41,040
Speaker 1: course of years, would still be attacked? Would have Congress

187
00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:44,560
Speaker 1: enactive attack and gave it a delayed beginning and said

188
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:46,880
Speaker 1: it is zero for the first few years and then

189
00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:49,959
Speaker 1: raised the level over time, would that still be attacks?

190
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: And you turned into the challenger said yes. So she

191
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,000
Speaker 1: pressed and said, how is this different? How is sort

192
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:59,480
Speaker 1: of attacked and waiting attacks temporarily set of zero not

193
00:10:59,600 --> 00:11:03,800
Speaker 1: attacked for purposes of its constitutional authority? That was one

194
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 1: set of questions. Then there's another set of questions that

195
00:11:06,600 --> 00:11:09,199
Speaker 1: sort of painted at the idea that maybe this is

196
00:11:09,280 --> 00:11:11,520
Speaker 1: no longer attacked at all, and that would make it

197
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 1: invalid because then nothing could justify it except for the

198
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:18,680
Speaker 1: commerce clause, as a court already held in twenty twelve

199
00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:21,600
Speaker 1: that the mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress's

200
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:25,720
Speaker 1: commerce power just to Starrett was very interested in that argument.

201
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 1: And then you know, throughout there was this other, this

202
00:11:29,600 --> 00:11:33,800
Speaker 1: other set of arguments about you know, how to conceptualize

203
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:35,839
Speaker 1: this at all. Maybe it's not a tax, maybe it's

204
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 1: the mandate, Maybe it's something different entirely. Maybe it's just

205
00:11:39,720 --> 00:11:45,520
Speaker 1: a precatory requirement, as Formers really said, you know, it's

206
00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 1: not operative, right, So that's the language that the Blue

207
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:51,600
Speaker 1: states in the House are using it. It's not a requirement,

208
00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:53,800
Speaker 1: it's not a command. And even if you don't see

209
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:57,040
Speaker 1: this attack, it's nothing operative. It has no effect, it

210
00:11:57,120 --> 00:11:59,719
Speaker 1: can't harm anybody. And so those are the kind of

211
00:11:59,720 --> 00:12:02,959
Speaker 1: different scenarios that the Court was moving amom and was

212
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:05,719
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how it was going to characterize

213
00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,480
Speaker 1: what we call the mandate with the court construted attacks.

214
00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:14,320
Speaker 1: What did you make of Justice Roberts asking for really

215
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:17,920
Speaker 1: why the bait and switch and we've been talking about

216
00:12:17,920 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: broccoli all this time for nothing? Yeah, that was a

217
00:12:20,520 --> 00:12:23,640
Speaker 1: great exchange. So the argument opened up with the California

218
00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:26,199
Speaker 1: Plis General. It was not surprisingly they used up all

219
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: of his time on the standing issues. So when they

220
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:31,360
Speaker 1: get to r Really who was overtending the House, they

221
00:12:31,360 --> 00:12:33,240
Speaker 1: suddenly are ready to turn to the mert, so they

222
00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: kind of have to clear the air. And the reason

223
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:37,960
Speaker 1: I have to clear the air is that really was

224
00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:41,880
Speaker 1: Barack Obama Solicitor General. He defended the Affordable Care Act

225
00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:44,760
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve and twenty fifteen, and the Supreme Court

226
00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:49,000
Speaker 1: and back in the actually argued that the mandate was

227
00:12:49,040 --> 00:12:51,760
Speaker 1: so essential to the operation of a few of the

228
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:54,560
Speaker 1: insurance provision and the Affordable Care Act that if the

229
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,600
Speaker 1: mandate was struck down, he suggested, the courts are strug

230
00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:00,080
Speaker 1: down a few of those insurance provisions as well. Know.

231
00:13:00,520 --> 00:13:02,680
Speaker 1: Roberts comes in and says, we had this whole debate

232
00:13:02,720 --> 00:13:06,080
Speaker 1: in twelve and you argued here about the mandate's essentiality.

233
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:08,559
Speaker 1: That was the broccoli debate, and now you're back saying

234
00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:11,320
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, so explain yourself. And that was really

235
00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:15,000
Speaker 1: important because it gave really an opportunity to both bring

236
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:17,720
Speaker 1: us into the present, to move us back from the

237
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:21,720
Speaker 1: twelve exchange, which is really no longer legally relevant, and

238
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:25,679
Speaker 1: also to explain why the people medicating positions have switched.

239
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:28,679
Speaker 1: And what we really said was well, back then, it

240
00:13:28,880 --> 00:13:31,760
Speaker 1: seemed to Congress that it needed in his words, both

241
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:35,199
Speaker 1: carrots and sticks to get the Affordable Flare Act markets

242
00:13:35,240 --> 00:13:38,040
Speaker 1: working effectively. The mandate was the stick, and he said,

243
00:13:38,080 --> 00:13:41,280
Speaker 1: over time it became clear that actually you don't need

244
00:13:41,280 --> 00:13:43,800
Speaker 1: the stick. The parrots are working just fine. And so

245
00:13:43,840 --> 00:13:48,600
Speaker 1: we said, the seventeen Congress, enlightened by these intervening years,

246
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 1: informed by data including a CBO report, made the decision

247
00:13:53,320 --> 00:13:55,880
Speaker 1: that the stick was no longer necessary. So what once

248
00:13:55,960 --> 00:13:59,160
Speaker 1: was thought to be important, it's not important anymore. And

249
00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:02,559
Speaker 1: that's why the appropriate to sever what's really interesting about that?

250
00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:05,560
Speaker 1: If we had another great analogy later in the argument

251
00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:08,880
Speaker 1: by Justice Alito, who says, you know, once upon a

252
00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:11,599
Speaker 1: time there was a piece that was really essential to

253
00:14:11,720 --> 00:14:14,200
Speaker 1: flying the plane, and now that piece has been taken

254
00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:17,920
Speaker 1: out when the plane hasn't crashed. Right. That's another way

255
00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:22,200
Speaker 1: of sort of explaining to change of events that happens

256
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:25,200
Speaker 1: over time. And of course it's the case that Congress

257
00:14:25,240 --> 00:14:28,840
Speaker 1: is allowed to offer statutes as circumstances change, and that's

258
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:32,040
Speaker 1: exactly what has been in missing. At one point, Justice

259
00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:36,800
Speaker 1: Briar seemed almost exasperated with the Texas Solicitor General when

260
00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:41,680
Speaker 1: he was questioning him about other laws that like Obamacare,

261
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:47,080
Speaker 1: don't have a mechanism for enforcement explain Briar's concern. Throughout

262
00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:50,200
Speaker 1: the argument, there was a repeated line of question about

263
00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:54,200
Speaker 1: so called pregatory laws, laws that require that sort of

264
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:57,520
Speaker 1: ask people to do something. We don't have any enforcement mechanism,

265
00:14:57,960 --> 00:15:01,080
Speaker 1: So Jesice Briar kept giving examples of many laws he

266
00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 1: remembered from his time in the Senate. He Spurs who

267
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:05,760
Speaker 1: was time in the Senate, and said, we had laws

268
00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 1: declaring X y Z a commemorative day building this post office,

269
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:13,000
Speaker 1: all sorts of laws that sort of urged but don't

270
00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:16,280
Speaker 1: have a penalty, don't have a tax associated with it.

271
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 1: And Briar looked at the Solicitor General and said, are

272
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:21,920
Speaker 1: you telling me that all of those hundreds of laws

273
00:15:21,920 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 1: that I remember across the U. S Code that asked

274
00:15:24,880 --> 00:15:27,480
Speaker 1: people to do things who don't have an import fit mechanism,

275
00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:30,840
Speaker 1: are all of those invalid? Because that's the theory they

276
00:15:30,880 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 1: were boarding here with respect to the mandate. And he

277
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:37,960
Speaker 1: got very frustrated because he took the Texas Solicitor General

278
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:40,400
Speaker 1: on the Department of Justice and making the claim that

279
00:15:40,440 --> 00:15:44,880
Speaker 1: they had somehow prus the entire US Code and searched

280
00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:47,440
Speaker 1: for provisions like this and found that none of them

281
00:15:47,520 --> 00:15:49,960
Speaker 1: used the shall language that the mandate uses, that the

282
00:15:49,960 --> 00:15:52,960
Speaker 1: mandate was really a command. And Briar pressed them and said,

283
00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:56,160
Speaker 1: have you actually read every statute in the US Code?

284
00:15:56,400 --> 00:15:59,080
Speaker 1: Are you absolutely sure? But I didn't remember it that

285
00:15:59,120 --> 00:16:01,240
Speaker 1: way from my time in Congress, and I remember writing

286
00:16:01,280 --> 00:16:04,120
Speaker 1: a lot of those laws that don't have an enforcement mechanism.

287
00:16:04,520 --> 00:16:06,800
Speaker 1: And in the end the lawyer sort of step back

288
00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:10,040
Speaker 1: and said, no, Justice, we haven't read every single law

289
00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:12,400
Speaker 1: in the US Code. So you know, I bet Justice

290
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:14,960
Speaker 1: Briar's law parks are going to be very busy this weekend.

291
00:16:15,040 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: It's coming the US Code. I'm serious for these examples

292
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:22,240
Speaker 1: because what the challenger's lawyers round up sort of digging

293
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:26,120
Speaker 1: their feet into with this idea that only the Affordable

294
00:16:26,200 --> 00:16:31,200
Speaker 1: Care Acts provision uses the word shall. Right, Briar said,

295
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:34,880
Speaker 1: you know, are you sure? Right? You are? You absolutely sure?

296
00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 1: And then they started having discussions about is it shall,

297
00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:41,760
Speaker 1: is it should? Doesn't make a difference. So I think

298
00:16:41,800 --> 00:16:45,400
Speaker 1: Justice Briar is informed by his knowledge of the US Code,

299
00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:47,320
Speaker 1: his knowledge of the statutory of that have faith in

300
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:51,960
Speaker 1: this kind of mechanism seemed familiar to him, didn't seem

301
00:16:52,000 --> 00:16:54,560
Speaker 1: that unusual for Converse to put in the provision that

302
00:16:54,640 --> 00:16:59,360
Speaker 1: has no enforcement mechanism. Um, just really pressing practice in

303
00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:02,040
Speaker 1: the Department of just about that. And now we come

304
00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:04,439
Speaker 1: to the third part of the analysis, and what I

305
00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:07,520
Speaker 1: think is the headline about the arguments, which is that

306
00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:12,800
Speaker 1: two conservative justices, the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh, seemed

307
00:17:12,840 --> 00:17:16,359
Speaker 1: to indicate in no uncertain terms that the mandate could

308
00:17:16,359 --> 00:17:19,600
Speaker 1: be severed from the rest of the law and Obamacare

309
00:17:19,840 --> 00:17:23,239
Speaker 1: will survive. Here's Justice Kavanaugh. I tend to agree with

310
00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:26,640
Speaker 1: you on this, a very straightforward case for severability under

311
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:30,000
Speaker 1: our precedents, meaning that we would exercise the mandate and

312
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:33,359
Speaker 1: leave the rest of the act in place. Yeah, I

313
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:35,000
Speaker 1: think that's right, and I think you're right that that

314
00:17:35,119 --> 00:17:37,200
Speaker 1: is to have mine. You know, as I've been saying

315
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:41,360
Speaker 1: throughout this conversation, Um, you know, the standing issues are

316
00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:44,440
Speaker 1: very important in general as the court to find a

317
00:17:44,520 --> 00:17:47,679
Speaker 1: standing Jars FURTA. It's very important for the court to

318
00:17:47,720 --> 00:17:52,080
Speaker 1: resolve this threshold question about whether litigants can take these

319
00:17:52,200 --> 00:17:56,280
Speaker 1: jeep dousand page laws find something offensive, uh, and us

320
00:17:56,320 --> 00:17:59,120
Speaker 1: an inseverability argument to create standing where there is none.

321
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:02,240
Speaker 1: That's important. The second to your question of whether the

322
00:18:02,280 --> 00:18:07,160
Speaker 1: mandate is unconstitutional. You know, that's important to some extent,

323
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:10,240
Speaker 1: but we've already had that discussion, and that, if I be,

324
00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:12,240
Speaker 1: we already know where most of the court is on

325
00:18:12,320 --> 00:18:15,119
Speaker 1: a commerce cause and the mandate's operation on the ground

326
00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 1: is not that significant. But this significant question, obviously is

327
00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:22,200
Speaker 1: what happens to the rest of the law. That's the

328
00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:25,199
Speaker 1: question that affects twenty million people who have thrown up

329
00:18:25,200 --> 00:18:28,679
Speaker 1: the roles, the hundred million people who have previous in conditions,

330
00:18:28,720 --> 00:18:31,320
Speaker 1: all the billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid and

331
00:18:31,320 --> 00:18:33,720
Speaker 1: so on, and really want this to be economy the

332
00:18:33,760 --> 00:18:36,800
Speaker 1: health care system. So that's the big question and to

333
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 1: that question, and this is why you're right, that is

334
00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:42,879
Speaker 1: the headline. Uh, it does look like the affordable character

335
00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:46,480
Speaker 1: it's likely to survive. Um. You know, we didn't hear

336
00:18:46,560 --> 00:18:51,679
Speaker 1: too much from the three liberal justices specifically about severability. UM.

337
00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:54,880
Speaker 1: But we did hear quite a bit from Justice Savanaugh

338
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:59,119
Speaker 1: and Chief Justice Roberts. Both justices realign themselves with a

339
00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:04,120
Speaker 1: strong presumption of separability. Justice Robert said he would find

340
00:19:04,160 --> 00:19:07,040
Speaker 1: it hard to believe that the Court should write down

341
00:19:07,119 --> 00:19:11,840
Speaker 1: the entire Affordable Care Acts from Congress itself after seventies

342
00:19:12,240 --> 00:19:15,320
Speaker 1: failed attempts to repeal and replace, decided only to zero

343
00:19:15,359 --> 00:19:17,920
Speaker 1: out that one provision and leave the rest of the

344
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:21,119
Speaker 1: law intact. And just shee. Justice Robert said, given that

345
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:23,960
Speaker 1: Congress did that, given that Congress left the rest of

346
00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:27,479
Speaker 1: the law intact, he said, it's not our job right

347
00:19:27,600 --> 00:19:31,440
Speaker 1: to strike it down. So that was really interesting. Um.

348
00:19:31,560 --> 00:19:34,920
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh said more than one that he thought the

349
00:19:34,960 --> 00:19:38,000
Speaker 1: severability argument was very strong here. He sort of laid

350
00:19:38,080 --> 00:19:42,960
Speaker 1: his cars on the table, and both Kavanaugh and Roberts um,

351
00:19:43,240 --> 00:19:47,760
Speaker 1: we're very spectacle of this argument made by Texas and

352
00:19:47,800 --> 00:19:51,679
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice that Congress somehow dictated to the

353
00:19:51,720 --> 00:19:55,080
Speaker 1: Court in the Affordable Care Act that come what may,

354
00:19:55,440 --> 00:19:58,200
Speaker 1: it should write down the Affordable Care Act, no matter

355
00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:02,000
Speaker 1: what it demanded a struck down. And that argument is

356
00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:07,480
Speaker 1: based on statutory findings of the law that were inserted

357
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:12,639
Speaker 1: into the law to justify Congresses power under the Commerce Clause.

358
00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:17,200
Speaker 1: As you know, the Court rejected Congress's Commerce Clause justifications,

359
00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:20,160
Speaker 1: but the language from those finding, who was talked about

360
00:20:20,200 --> 00:20:24,040
Speaker 1: the mandates importance to the markets is what the challenger sees.

361
00:20:24,119 --> 00:20:27,640
Speaker 1: Don Justice Kavanaugh and to Justice Roberts really weren't having

362
00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:29,960
Speaker 1: any of that. They said, you know what, I know

363
00:20:30,040 --> 00:20:33,680
Speaker 1: what an inseparability clause looks like. The US Code has

364
00:20:33,760 --> 00:20:37,919
Speaker 1: plenty of examples, and that's not what this looks like.

365
00:20:38,359 --> 00:20:41,399
Speaker 1: When Congress wants to write in separability clause, it knows

366
00:20:41,640 --> 00:20:44,240
Speaker 1: how to do that. And I think those are very

367
00:20:44,280 --> 00:20:48,040
Speaker 1: important moments in the our arguments for the Affordable Care Act.

368
00:20:48,520 --> 00:20:54,120
Speaker 1: Don't really know where Barrett Thomas or such oral leader

369
00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:59,879
Speaker 1: are on separability. It is interesting that Justice Thomas, who

370
00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 1: in some past cases has indicated desire to reshaped severability doctrine,

371
00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:09,840
Speaker 1: just kept saying sever ability is a question of statutory interpretation.

372
00:21:10,200 --> 00:21:13,080
Speaker 1: He didn't seem to resist the notion of severability in general.

373
00:21:13,800 --> 00:21:17,920
Speaker 1: And we had that analogy from Justice Alito saying, well,

374
00:21:17,920 --> 00:21:20,160
Speaker 1: we thought the mandate was so important, but we've taken

375
00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:22,879
Speaker 1: it out and the point is so flying. That sounds

376
00:21:22,920 --> 00:21:26,320
Speaker 1: kind of like a severability argument to me um. And

377
00:21:26,359 --> 00:21:29,119
Speaker 1: then we really didn't hear anything from Core such a

378
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:32,159
Speaker 1: Barrett one way or the other about how they might

379
00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:35,280
Speaker 1: rule on severability if they do ever get to that question.

380
00:21:36,200 --> 00:21:38,439
Speaker 1: And mean, let me ask you this question, why do

381
00:21:38,520 --> 00:21:43,600
Speaker 1: you think that the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh so

382
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:47,920
Speaker 1: plainly laid their cards on the table, as you say,

383
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:51,440
Speaker 1: to say that you know, basically we're going to vote

384
00:21:51,440 --> 00:21:55,560
Speaker 1: that this is severable. Well, you know I've written this before.

385
00:21:55,640 --> 00:21:57,800
Speaker 1: I think of you and I discussed this before as well.

386
00:21:58,119 --> 00:22:02,200
Speaker 1: You know, Justice and Justice Kavana just wrote opinions last

387
00:22:02,320 --> 00:22:06,639
Speaker 1: term on severability. Right. Each of them authored important opinions,

388
00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:11,240
Speaker 1: strongly reaffirming the presumption in favor of separability. Both of

389
00:22:11,240 --> 00:22:14,560
Speaker 1: them used the same analogy in those opinions, that's um

390
00:22:14,760 --> 00:22:18,320
Speaker 1: Sellia law and the American Political Consultants case. Both of

391
00:22:18,320 --> 00:22:22,720
Speaker 1: them used the same analogy, comparing severability to surgical severance

392
00:22:22,920 --> 00:22:27,719
Speaker 1: rather than wholesale destruction, a scalpel rather than a bulldozer.

393
00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:30,920
Speaker 1: Both of them so sort of in tandem last spring

394
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:34,359
Speaker 1: reaffirming that auction. And it's very very hard for me

395
00:22:34,440 --> 00:22:37,520
Speaker 1: to believe that in writing those cases they didn't have

396
00:22:37,560 --> 00:22:39,640
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Acts. Somewhere in the back of their

397
00:22:39,640 --> 00:22:42,840
Speaker 1: mind they knew the case was coming. The new severability

398
00:22:43,600 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 1: is going to be important. Just as Kavanaugh wrote about

399
00:22:46,320 --> 00:22:48,480
Speaker 1: severability in the Law Review article before he was on

400
00:22:48,520 --> 00:22:51,959
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, talking about the importance of the strong presumption.

401
00:22:52,400 --> 00:22:55,040
Speaker 1: So I think it would have been actually very strange

402
00:22:55,760 --> 00:22:59,800
Speaker 1: if neither of them had mentioned the presumption and favorability

403
00:22:59,880 --> 00:23:02,480
Speaker 1: or kind of alignment topic with it, because it would

404
00:23:02,520 --> 00:23:04,960
Speaker 1: have looked like they were departing from this rule, that

405
00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:08,080
Speaker 1: the settled rule to each of them just reaffirmed a

406
00:23:08,119 --> 00:23:12,000
Speaker 1: few months ago somehow for political reasons through the Affordable

407
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:15,479
Speaker 1: Care Act. So I wasn't really surprised, um, but it

408
00:23:15,560 --> 00:23:18,119
Speaker 1: was refreshing to see them, you know, be rather upfront

409
00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:20,720
Speaker 1: about it. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show,

410
00:23:20,760 --> 00:23:24,720
Speaker 1: Abbey Bess, Professor Abby Gluck of Yale Law School, the

411
00:23:24,800 --> 00:23:28,280
Speaker 1: faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy.

412
00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:31,480
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court will issue its decision in the Obamacare

413
00:23:31,560 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: case by June. With healthcare accounting for a sixth of

414
00:23:35,160 --> 00:23:38,680
Speaker 1: the US economy, the stakes are massive, and the challenge

415
00:23:38,720 --> 00:23:42,480
Speaker 1: jeopardizes the healthcare of more than one five million Americans

416
00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 1: with pre existing conditions, including those who have had COVID nineteen,

417
00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:50,560
Speaker 1: according to the Center for American Progress. And that's it

418
00:23:50,600 --> 00:23:53,160
Speaker 1: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June

419
00:23:53,160 --> 00:23:55,879
Speaker 1: gross Out. Thanks so much for listening. You can always

420
00:23:55,880 --> 00:23:58,400
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

421
00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:01,760
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, or at

422
00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:07,080
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law, and

423
00:24:07,119 --> 00:24:09,720
Speaker 1: remember to tune to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight,

424
00:24:09,840 --> 00:24:12,639
Speaker 1: ten pm Eastern, right here on Bloomberg Radio