Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We will hear argument this morning in case California versus Texas.
Speaker 1: In the most high stakes case of the term, the
Speaker 1: justice is considered the fate of the Affordable Care Act,
Speaker 1: the landmark law better known as Obamacare, that provides health
Speaker 1: insurance to twenty million people. From the oral arguments, it
Speaker 1: appeared that the law would survive the challenge, but the
Speaker 1: question was how on what grounds? First, the justices have
Speaker 1: to decide whether the challengers even have a legal right
Speaker 1: to sue, called standing, and Chief Justice John Roberts and
Speaker 1: Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh posed several hypotheticals to
Speaker 1: determine this. Let's say Congress passes a law saying everybody
Speaker 1: has to mow their lawn once a week. Uh. And
Speaker 1: they even make a lot of findings about why that's
Speaker 1: a good thing. You know, it makes the country look neater,
Speaker 1: you get fresh air if you have to do that,
Speaker 1: supports the lawnmower business. Um. And but the fine for
Speaker 1: violating it is zero zero dollars. Um, do they have standing?
Speaker 1: I assume that in most places there is no penalty
Speaker 1: for wearing a face math or a mask during covid um,
Speaker 1: but there is some degree of approbrium if one does
Speaker 1: not wear it in certain settings. Suppose Congress passed the
Speaker 1: law requiring every American who lives in a house to
Speaker 1: fly an American flag in front of the house. There's
Speaker 1: no penalty. My guest is Abby Gluck, a professor at
Speaker 1: Yale Law School and the founding faculty director of the
Speaker 1: Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy. Happy Let's start
Speaker 1: with the basics. Why is Obamacare before the Supreme Court again?
Speaker 1: So this is actually the seventh time the Affordable Care
Speaker 1: Act has been in a Supreme Court in eight years,
Speaker 1: and it is the third time the Supportable Care Act
Speaker 1: has sased what we call an existential challenge, a challenge
Speaker 1: to its entire being. And the reason the case is
Speaker 1: here is that Congress in decided, after seventy failed attempts
Speaker 1: to appeal and replace the laws, that it was able
Speaker 1: to do one thing, one symbolic thing, and that is
Speaker 1: zero out the penalty associated with the insurance purchase requirements,
Speaker 1: the infamous mandates, the insurance mandate. This, as you might remember,
Speaker 1: had been the focal point of the first litigation long
Speaker 1: been held up there as a symbol of what anti
Speaker 1: affordable tax folks really don't like. So Congress zeros out
Speaker 1: the penalty. The mandate is no longer enforceable, and in
Speaker 1: the real world that really has relatively little effects. And
Speaker 1: the reason that has relatively little effect is that the
Speaker 1: mandate had never really been fully enforced, the markets that
Speaker 1: acclimated to the mandate not existing, and so by the
Speaker 1: time the mandate is actually as he wrote out, the
Speaker 1: effect on the market is relatively little. So how do
Speaker 1: we get to the court? Well, eighteen Red States of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice took that argument one step further
Speaker 1: and said, look, now the mandate is no longer constitutional.
Speaker 1: The reason the mandate is no longer constitutional is that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, in an earlier case in twenty twelve
Speaker 1: and f I d. Versus abilious upheld the mandate as
Speaker 1: attacks to the penalty of zero. They argued, it can't
Speaker 1: be attacked still relatively insignificant, given that the mandate was
Speaker 1: not really enforced. However, they weren't even further than that,
Speaker 1: and argued that the entire Affordable Charact was so inextricably
Speaker 1: tied to the mandate that the whole two thousand piece
Speaker 1: law had to go down with it, and they might
Speaker 1: have been further and said Congress told the court as much.
Speaker 1: Congressise effectively instructed the Court to strike the entire statute down,
Speaker 1: even after Congress decided not to strict to church you down.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a preposterous set effect that brought
Speaker 1: us to earlier. So the first question was whether the
Speaker 1: challengers here have standing to sue, And we heard all
Speaker 1: kinds of hypotheticals from the justice is about mowing the lawn,
Speaker 1: wearing a mask, flying the flag. What were they getting at? Yes,
Speaker 1: So I think it was really interesting start to the
Speaker 1: oral argument. Um, we had all the justices in our
Speaker 1: first line of question. We're asking these stand main questions.
Speaker 1: And so while everyone who's sort of listening in waiting
Speaker 1: to get to the consequential question of will be a
Speaker 1: a survive Uh, the Court took the entire time for
Speaker 1: the California Solicitor General to spend on the threshold question
Speaker 1: of standing. So why is that important? First of all,
Speaker 1: standing is a threshold question. If the parties aren't injured
Speaker 1: deficients to bring the case, the case goes away. So
Speaker 1: it's important that the courts from the time on that second,
Speaker 1: you've got to remember that these standing issues are important
Speaker 1: to the court beyond the context of the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: Whatever happened to the Affordable Care Act this year, UM
Speaker 1: may well be tied just to the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: Of course, if they affirm the presumption of sever ability,
Speaker 1: that's very important. But there are important standing issues about
Speaker 1: the ability of states to bring cases and what kind
Speaker 1: of injury individuals need to bring cases, and the Court
Speaker 1: cares about those issues a lot in the long term.
Speaker 1: So I was not surprising to the justices, uh, focusing
Speaker 1: on that for the first round of questions. What was
Speaker 1: the meaning of all those questions? You're right, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of interesting hypothetical where if there's a requirement
Speaker 1: that you were a mask, but there's no penalty to
Speaker 1: enforce it. Where if there's a requirement to everybody knows
Speaker 1: their lawns and there's no penalty to enforce it, and
Speaker 1: so on. And when they were trying to get at
Speaker 1: was the question of um, whether you could be sufficiently
Speaker 1: injured by failing to obey a requirement that doesn't have
Speaker 1: an enforcement provision. So an example that the Chief Justice
Speaker 1: gave was, uh, if you decided if you were then asked,
Speaker 1: have you ever broken a law on an employment form
Speaker 1: and you decided to say not to mow your lawn? Um,
Speaker 1: would you have to check the box to say yes,
Speaker 1: I wrote the law or not? And they were trying
Speaker 1: to use those hypotheticals to get the question about whether
Speaker 1: an unenforceable requirement which is how the justice were describing
Speaker 1: as for those hypotheticals, would be sufficient to hook injury
Speaker 1: onto for purpose of standing, knowing that you can't definitively
Speaker 1: ten from the justices questions, do you think that there
Speaker 1: are enough votes to say that there is standing and
Speaker 1: they can go to the merits question? So I think
Speaker 1: that we don't know how the court is going to
Speaker 1: rule on standing. There were so many different questions going
Speaker 1: in so many different areas that it's very hard to tell.
Speaker 1: If I were a betting person, I would that slightly,
Speaker 1: although I've never been on the court to say that
Speaker 1: the Court will get to the Merritt's question, because there
Speaker 1: did seem to be enough justices that were interested, uh
Speaker 1: in getting to the merriage question. And in fact, and
Speaker 1: as we'll talk about in upholding the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: But there is one pretty significant piece of the standing
Speaker 1: argument um which I think is relatively important, and it's
Speaker 1: just the argument that the Department of Justice is making
Speaker 1: it which there was effectively trying to bootstrap standing by
Speaker 1: using the entire Affordable Care Acts to challenge one particular provision.
Speaker 1: So based me the day argument is because some of
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs were harmed by some provisions in the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act, they can then argue that because all of
Speaker 1: the provisions of the Affordable Character are tied together, that
Speaker 1: they're inseparable. That allows them to get into courts to
Speaker 1: argue that demandated are constitutional, and therefore all the provisions,
Speaker 1: including the one that offends them, will be struck down.
Speaker 1: And just the So the mayor says, well, that's really
Speaker 1: your argument. Shouldn't they have just challenged the provision that
Speaker 1: they don't like. Why are they trying to come into
Speaker 1: court through the back door of arguing the whole statute
Speaker 1: is inextriculably tied together, so I can therefore challenge anything
Speaker 1: I want right to bring the whole statute down. So
Speaker 1: just to so do majors sort of call them on that,
Speaker 1: I think just as Thomas is very, very worried about
Speaker 1: this idea of thinking about the statute as inseparable, as
Speaker 1: a single coherent unit that can't be broken apart for
Speaker 1: purposes of the stand. The youngquery, because you saw how
Speaker 1: that could just open up and explode This idea of
Speaker 1: articles were standing, would make it very easy for lit
Speaker 1: again to get into courts of challenge thing by bootstepping
Speaker 1: arguments on the dickerent positions that had no harmful effect
Speaker 1: on them whatsoever. When the Justice is turned to considering
Speaker 1: the merits of the case and whether the individual mandate
Speaker 1: is still constitutional after Congress zero and out the penalty,
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts questioned former Solicitor General Donald Vailli,
Speaker 1: who now represents the House, about his apparent change of
Speaker 1: position since the arguments in. But now the representation is
Speaker 1: that who know everything's fine without it? Uh? Why why
Speaker 1: de bate and switched? And was was Congress wrong when
Speaker 1: it said that the mandate was the key to the
Speaker 1: whole thing that we spent spent all that time talking
Speaker 1: about broccoli for nothing? Justice Steven Bryer pointed to many
Speaker 1: laws that tell the public to do things without any
Speaker 1: horseman provisions and he pressed the Texas Solicitor General to
Speaker 1: explain why those statutes aren't now open to challenge. World
Speaker 1: War One defense statutes, buy war bonds, an environmental statute
Speaker 1: plant a tree, a one of a thousand statutes commemorating
Speaker 1: something beautiful, city's day, clean up the yard. Are all
Speaker 1: those statutes suddenly open to challenge? I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Abbey Gluck, a professor at Yale Law School. Abbey, where
Speaker 1: do you think that justice has stood on the constitutionality
Speaker 1: of the individual mandate? Which interesting about the discussion on
Speaker 1: the mandate is that, again, this is more an area
Speaker 1: in which I don't think we can predict if a
Speaker 1: mandate itself will survive. Uh As I said before, I
Speaker 1: do think it's more likely than that if the rest
Speaker 1: of the Affordable Care Act will survive. And that's a
Speaker 1: consequential question in the case, because I said earlier, mandate
Speaker 1: has not been fully enforced, So whether or not a
Speaker 1: survived has relatively about practical significance. But the oil argument
Speaker 1: was basically a debate about different kinds of scenarios. One
Speaker 1: scenario is could this possibly still be attacked? There's a
Speaker 1: really interesting set of questions um that you know, rotated
Speaker 1: among course search and Alito and Justice of Mayor, among others,
Speaker 1: where they were exploring the idea of whether attack with
Speaker 1: a number of zero on it could still be attacked
Speaker 1: in justice of mariority is some really helpful examples. For instance,
Speaker 1: she asked the lawyers, well, what if Congress set attacks
Speaker 1: and then phased it out down to zero over a
Speaker 1: course of years, would still be attacked? Would have Congress
Speaker 1: enactive attack and gave it a delayed beginning and said
Speaker 1: it is zero for the first few years and then
Speaker 1: raised the level over time, would that still be attacks?
Speaker 1: And you turned into the challenger said yes. So she
Speaker 1: pressed and said, how is this different? How is sort
Speaker 1: of attacked and waiting attacks temporarily set of zero not
Speaker 1: attacked for purposes of its constitutional authority? That was one
Speaker 1: set of questions. Then there's another set of questions that
Speaker 1: sort of painted at the idea that maybe this is
Speaker 1: no longer attacked at all, and that would make it
Speaker 1: invalid because then nothing could justify it except for the
Speaker 1: commerce clause, as a court already held in twenty twelve
Speaker 1: that the mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress's
Speaker 1: commerce power just to Starrett was very interested in that argument.
Speaker 1: And then you know, throughout there was this other, this
Speaker 1: other set of arguments about you know, how to conceptualize
Speaker 1: this at all. Maybe it's not a tax, maybe it's
Speaker 1: the mandate, Maybe it's something different entirely. Maybe it's just
Speaker 1: a precatory requirement, as Formers really said, you know, it's
Speaker 1: not operative, right, So that's the language that the Blue
Speaker 1: states in the House are using it. It's not a requirement,
Speaker 1: it's not a command. And even if you don't see
Speaker 1: this attack, it's nothing operative. It has no effect, it
Speaker 1: can't harm anybody. And so those are the kind of
Speaker 1: different scenarios that the Court was moving amom and was
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how it was going to characterize
Speaker 1: what we call the mandate with the court construted attacks.
Speaker 1: What did you make of Justice Roberts asking for really
Speaker 1: why the bait and switch and we've been talking about
Speaker 1: broccoli all this time for nothing? Yeah, that was a
Speaker 1: great exchange. So the argument opened up with the California
Speaker 1: Plis General. It was not surprisingly they used up all
Speaker 1: of his time on the standing issues. So when they
Speaker 1: get to r Really who was overtending the House, they
Speaker 1: suddenly are ready to turn to the mert, so they
Speaker 1: kind of have to clear the air. And the reason
Speaker 1: I have to clear the air is that really was
Speaker 1: Barack Obama Solicitor General. He defended the Affordable Care Act
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve and twenty fifteen, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and back in the actually argued that the mandate was
Speaker 1: so essential to the operation of a few of the
Speaker 1: insurance provision and the Affordable Care Act that if the
Speaker 1: mandate was struck down, he suggested, the courts are strug
Speaker 1: down a few of those insurance provisions as well. Know.
Speaker 1: Roberts comes in and says, we had this whole debate
Speaker 1: in twelve and you argued here about the mandate's essentiality.
Speaker 1: That was the broccoli debate, and now you're back saying
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, so explain yourself. And that was really
Speaker 1: important because it gave really an opportunity to both bring
Speaker 1: us into the present, to move us back from the
Speaker 1: twelve exchange, which is really no longer legally relevant, and
Speaker 1: also to explain why the people medicating positions have switched.
Speaker 1: And what we really said was well, back then, it
Speaker 1: seemed to Congress that it needed in his words, both
Speaker 1: carrots and sticks to get the Affordable Flare Act markets
Speaker 1: working effectively. The mandate was the stick, and he said,
Speaker 1: over time it became clear that actually you don't need
Speaker 1: the stick. The parrots are working just fine. And so
Speaker 1: we said, the seventeen Congress, enlightened by these intervening years,
Speaker 1: informed by data including a CBO report, made the decision
Speaker 1: that the stick was no longer necessary. So what once
Speaker 1: was thought to be important, it's not important anymore. And
Speaker 1: that's why the appropriate to sever what's really interesting about that?
Speaker 1: If we had another great analogy later in the argument
Speaker 1: by Justice Alito, who says, you know, once upon a
Speaker 1: time there was a piece that was really essential to
Speaker 1: flying the plane, and now that piece has been taken
Speaker 1: out when the plane hasn't crashed. Right. That's another way
Speaker 1: of sort of explaining to change of events that happens
Speaker 1: over time. And of course it's the case that Congress
Speaker 1: is allowed to offer statutes as circumstances change, and that's
Speaker 1: exactly what has been in missing. At one point, Justice
Speaker 1: Briar seemed almost exasperated with the Texas Solicitor General when
Speaker 1: he was questioning him about other laws that like Obamacare,
Speaker 1: don't have a mechanism for enforcement explain Briar's concern. Throughout
Speaker 1: the argument, there was a repeated line of question about
Speaker 1: so called pregatory laws, laws that require that sort of
Speaker 1: ask people to do something. We don't have any enforcement mechanism,
Speaker 1: So Jesice Briar kept giving examples of many laws he
Speaker 1: remembered from his time in the Senate. He Spurs who
Speaker 1: was time in the Senate, and said, we had laws
Speaker 1: declaring X y Z a commemorative day building this post office,
Speaker 1: all sorts of laws that sort of urged but don't
Speaker 1: have a penalty, don't have a tax associated with it.
Speaker 1: And Briar looked at the Solicitor General and said, are
Speaker 1: you telling me that all of those hundreds of laws
Speaker 1: that I remember across the U. S Code that asked
Speaker 1: people to do things who don't have an import fit mechanism,
Speaker 1: are all of those invalid? Because that's the theory they
Speaker 1: were boarding here with respect to the mandate. And he
Speaker 1: got very frustrated because he took the Texas Solicitor General
Speaker 1: on the Department of Justice and making the claim that
Speaker 1: they had somehow prus the entire US Code and searched
Speaker 1: for provisions like this and found that none of them
Speaker 1: used the shall language that the mandate uses, that the
Speaker 1: mandate was really a command. And Briar pressed them and said,
Speaker 1: have you actually read every statute in the US Code?
Speaker 1: Are you absolutely sure? But I didn't remember it that
Speaker 1: way from my time in Congress, and I remember writing
Speaker 1: a lot of those laws that don't have an enforcement mechanism.
Speaker 1: And in the end the lawyer sort of step back
Speaker 1: and said, no, Justice, we haven't read every single law
Speaker 1: in the US Code. So you know, I bet Justice
Speaker 1: Briar's law parks are going to be very busy this weekend.
Speaker 1: It's coming the US Code. I'm serious for these examples
Speaker 1: because what the challenger's lawyers round up sort of digging
Speaker 1: their feet into with this idea that only the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Acts provision uses the word shall. Right, Briar said,
Speaker 1: you know, are you sure? Right? You are? You absolutely sure?
Speaker 1: And then they started having discussions about is it shall,
Speaker 1: is it should? Doesn't make a difference. So I think
Speaker 1: Justice Briar is informed by his knowledge of the US Code,
Speaker 1: his knowledge of the statutory of that have faith in
Speaker 1: this kind of mechanism seemed familiar to him, didn't seem
Speaker 1: that unusual for Converse to put in the provision that
Speaker 1: has no enforcement mechanism. Um, just really pressing practice in
Speaker 1: the Department of just about that. And now we come
Speaker 1: to the third part of the analysis, and what I
Speaker 1: think is the headline about the arguments, which is that
Speaker 1: two conservative justices, the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh, seemed
Speaker 1: to indicate in no uncertain terms that the mandate could
Speaker 1: be severed from the rest of the law and Obamacare
Speaker 1: will survive. Here's Justice Kavanaugh. I tend to agree with
Speaker 1: you on this, a very straightforward case for severability under
Speaker 1: our precedents, meaning that we would exercise the mandate and
Speaker 1: leave the rest of the act in place. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's right, and I think you're right that that
Speaker 1: is to have mine. You know, as I've been saying
Speaker 1: throughout this conversation, Um, you know, the standing issues are
Speaker 1: very important in general as the court to find a
Speaker 1: standing Jars FURTA. It's very important for the court to
Speaker 1: resolve this threshold question about whether litigants can take these
Speaker 1: jeep dousand page laws find something offensive, uh, and us
Speaker 1: an inseverability argument to create standing where there is none.
Speaker 1: That's important. The second to your question of whether the
Speaker 1: mandate is unconstitutional. You know, that's important to some extent,
Speaker 1: but we've already had that discussion, and that, if I be,
Speaker 1: we already know where most of the court is on
Speaker 1: a commerce cause and the mandate's operation on the ground
Speaker 1: is not that significant. But this significant question, obviously is
Speaker 1: what happens to the rest of the law. That's the
Speaker 1: question that affects twenty million people who have thrown up
Speaker 1: the roles, the hundred million people who have previous in conditions,
Speaker 1: all the billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid and
Speaker 1: so on, and really want this to be economy the
Speaker 1: health care system. So that's the big question and to
Speaker 1: that question, and this is why you're right, that is
Speaker 1: the headline. Uh, it does look like the affordable character
Speaker 1: it's likely to survive. Um. You know, we didn't hear
Speaker 1: too much from the three liberal justices specifically about severability. UM.
Speaker 1: But we did hear quite a bit from Justice Savanaugh
Speaker 1: and Chief Justice Roberts. Both justices realign themselves with a
Speaker 1: strong presumption of separability. Justice Robert said he would find
Speaker 1: it hard to believe that the Court should write down
Speaker 1: the entire Affordable Care Acts from Congress itself after seventies
Speaker 1: failed attempts to repeal and replace, decided only to zero
Speaker 1: out that one provision and leave the rest of the
Speaker 1: law intact. And just shee. Justice Robert said, given that
Speaker 1: Congress did that, given that Congress left the rest of
Speaker 1: the law intact, he said, it's not our job right
Speaker 1: to strike it down. So that was really interesting. Um.
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh said more than one that he thought the
Speaker 1: severability argument was very strong here. He sort of laid
Speaker 1: his cars on the table, and both Kavanaugh and Roberts um,
Speaker 1: we're very spectacle of this argument made by Texas and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice that Congress somehow dictated to the
Speaker 1: Court in the Affordable Care Act that come what may,
Speaker 1: it should write down the Affordable Care Act, no matter
Speaker 1: what it demanded a struck down. And that argument is
Speaker 1: based on statutory findings of the law that were inserted
Speaker 1: into the law to justify Congresses power under the Commerce Clause.
Speaker 1: As you know, the Court rejected Congress's Commerce Clause justifications,
Speaker 1: but the language from those finding, who was talked about
Speaker 1: the mandates importance to the markets is what the challenger sees.
Speaker 1: Don Justice Kavanaugh and to Justice Roberts really weren't having
Speaker 1: any of that. They said, you know what, I know
Speaker 1: what an inseparability clause looks like. The US Code has
Speaker 1: plenty of examples, and that's not what this looks like.
Speaker 1: When Congress wants to write in separability clause, it knows
Speaker 1: how to do that. And I think those are very
Speaker 1: important moments in the our arguments for the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: Don't really know where Barrett Thomas or such oral leader
Speaker 1: are on separability. It is interesting that Justice Thomas, who
Speaker 1: in some past cases has indicated desire to reshaped severability doctrine,
Speaker 1: just kept saying sever ability is a question of statutory interpretation.
Speaker 1: He didn't seem to resist the notion of severability in general.
Speaker 1: And we had that analogy from Justice Alito saying, well,
Speaker 1: we thought the mandate was so important, but we've taken
Speaker 1: it out and the point is so flying. That sounds
Speaker 1: kind of like a severability argument to me um. And
Speaker 1: then we really didn't hear anything from Core such a
Speaker 1: Barrett one way or the other about how they might
Speaker 1: rule on severability if they do ever get to that question.
Speaker 1: And mean, let me ask you this question, why do
Speaker 1: you think that the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh so
Speaker 1: plainly laid their cards on the table, as you say,
Speaker 1: to say that you know, basically we're going to vote
Speaker 1: that this is severable. Well, you know I've written this before.
Speaker 1: I think of you and I discussed this before as well.
Speaker 1: You know, Justice and Justice Kavana just wrote opinions last
Speaker 1: term on severability. Right. Each of them authored important opinions,
Speaker 1: strongly reaffirming the presumption in favor of separability. Both of
Speaker 1: them used the same analogy in those opinions, that's um
Speaker 1: Sellia law and the American Political Consultants case. Both of
Speaker 1: them used the same analogy, comparing severability to surgical severance
Speaker 1: rather than wholesale destruction, a scalpel rather than a bulldozer.
Speaker 1: Both of them so sort of in tandem last spring
Speaker 1: reaffirming that auction. And it's very very hard for me
Speaker 1: to believe that in writing those cases they didn't have
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Acts. Somewhere in the back of their
Speaker 1: mind they knew the case was coming. The new severability
Speaker 1: is going to be important. Just as Kavanaugh wrote about
Speaker 1: severability in the Law Review article before he was on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, talking about the importance of the strong presumption.
Speaker 1: So I think it would have been actually very strange
Speaker 1: if neither of them had mentioned the presumption and favorability
Speaker 1: or kind of alignment topic with it, because it would
Speaker 1: have looked like they were departing from this rule, that
Speaker 1: the settled rule to each of them just reaffirmed a
Speaker 1: few months ago somehow for political reasons through the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act. So I wasn't really surprised, um, but it
Speaker 1: was refreshing to see them, you know, be rather upfront
Speaker 1: about it. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show,
Speaker 1: Abbey Bess, Professor Abby Gluck of Yale Law School, the
Speaker 1: faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court will issue its decision in the Obamacare
Speaker 1: case by June. With healthcare accounting for a sixth of
Speaker 1: the US economy, the stakes are massive, and the challenge
Speaker 1: jeopardizes the healthcare of more than one five million Americans
Speaker 1: with pre existing conditions, including those who have had COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: according to the Center for American Progress. And that's it
Speaker 1: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June
Speaker 1: gross Out. Thanks so much for listening. You can always
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, or at
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast, slash Law, and
Speaker 1: remember to tune to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight,
Speaker 1: ten pm Eastern, right here on Bloomberg Radio