The Wall Street Journal has this piece on today’s oral argument. According to the Journal, the government’s arguments in favor of the ACA “received a mixed reception” from the panel.
The Journal writes that Judge Sutton questioned “the factual basis Congress used to support its decision to require individuals to maintain health coverage,” and concluded that it “is not proper to make people buy things—that’s the point.” The Journal notes, however, that Judge Sutton “said catastrophic health events can happen unexpectedly and he suggested that a citizen’s choice to forego health insurance is an economic decision that could be subject to federal regulation.” Meanwhile, the Journal writes that Judge Graham “expressed concern that the Obama administration’s arguments favored too broad a view of the power of the federal government,” and that Judge Martin was “not as tough” on the Solicitor General.”
Regarding standing, the Journal writes that the court “left open the possibility that it will not issue a ruling on the merits at all.” According to the Journal, Judge Sutton “said DeMars’ change in insurance status was problematic and may require the appeals court to send the case back to a trial judge for additional proceedings on whether any of the other plaintiffs has standing to sue.”
