Excerpts from Supreme Court health care arguments

The Associated Press Published:

Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court arguments over whether legal challenges to President Barack Obama's health care law are premature under the Anti-Injunction Act, which bars lawsuits against a tax until after the tax is paid:

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: This case presents issues of great moment and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court's consideration of those issues.

Robert A. Long: Somewhat to my surprise, "tax" is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.








Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: There's this category of people who are Medicaid eligible; Medicaid doesn't cost them anything. Why would they resist enrolling?

Gregory Katsas: I don't know, Justice Ginsburg. All I know is that the difference between current enrollees and people who could enroll but have not is, as I said, is a $600 million delta.


Katsas: Because Congress reasonably could think that at least some people will follow the law precisely because it is the law. And let me give you an example of one category of person that might be -- the very poor, who are exempt from the penalty but subject to the mandate.


Chief Justice John Roberts: The whole point of the suit is to prevent the collection of penalties.

Katsas: Of taxes, Mr. Chief Justice.

Roberts: Well, prevent the collection of taxes. But the idea that the mandate is something separate from, whether you want to call it a penalty or tax, just doesn't seem to make much sense.


Roberts: It's a command. A mandate is a command. Now, if there is nothing behind the command, it's sort of, well, what happens if you don't follow the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime.
