The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would grant certiorari with respect to two petitions relating to a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
A district court in Texas had previously declared the ACA unconstitutional because it was not severable from the individual mandate, which the court had determined was no longer a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power after Congress zeroed out the tax penalty in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The 5th Circuit agreed that the individual mandate was no longer constitutional, but remanded for reconsideration of the district court’s standing analysis.
Various states and the House of Representatives have interceded to defend the ACA, while certain other states, the individual plaintiffs, and the federal government each argue that the law should be struck down.
In addition to the constitutionality and severability issues, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit. The Supreme Court is expected to hear one hour of oral argument likely around October 2020, although a decision in the case will likely not be released until late 2020 or early 2021.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.