Supreme Court Arguments on Health Law Trigger Mad Dash for Seats

Daily News Article — Posted on March 19, 2012

(by Janet Adamy and Jess Bravin, The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com) WASHINGTON – … [People are trying to obtain] a spot inside the Supreme Court to watch three days of arguments challenging the 2010 health-care law that begin here [on March 26], a week from today. …

[Liberal] Ezekiel Emanuel, a former White House adviser who helped craft the health-care law, hit up conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for a ticket even though the two men disagree on almost everything, he said, except “we like sharing good food.”

Inside the White House, aides are elbowing for a spot but fear there won’t be enough to go around, said one person familiar with the matter. Many of the 26 state attorneys general and governors who are plaintiffs worry they will be left empty-handed. Ilya Shapiro of the [libertarian] Cato Institute said he might even camp in line overnight.

“It’s like the most important ticket of the decade,” said Dr. Emanuel, an oncologist and brother of former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Justice Scalia, “who I have come to know and find very likable,” he said, came through.

With only about 400 seats in the court – and no TV or radio broadcasts, or any commercial photos or recordings, period – the limited chance to witness arguments in one of the highest profile legal battles in memory has triggered an equally historic scramble [to get seats inside the courtroom].

The central issue is whether the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a fee violates the Constitution.

People not in the courtroom during arguments will have to rely on secondhand reports on lawyers’ arguments—and justice questions—until the official audio recordings are released at week’s end.

[Democratic] Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, who helped draft the law, and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a top-ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee, say they have confirmed seats. …

The court wouldn’t discuss seating arrangements, and officials say they are still working out a plan.

In general, court officials said, most seats are reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar, court staff, the dueling parties, tickets controlled by the justices themselves—about nine apiece—tickets controlled by court officers and the media.

Usually, at least 50 seats are reserved for people waiting in line. Others can wait in a separate line for a three-minute glimpse of the proceedings.

Mr. Shapiro, who helped draft briefs against the law, failed to get one of the seats allotted to plaintiffs.

So Mr. Shapiro, who also edits Cato’s Supreme Court review publication, asked the website Daily Caller to name him its reporter, hoping he can squeeze into the press section.

Media seats are scarce, too. Mr. Shapiro said he was mapping out a backup plan: “I think overnight camping might be in order, or a relay of interns in shifts.”

John Winslow, owner of Linestanding.com, a Bethesda, Md., queue-for-hire service, said he was fielding an increasing number of inquiries. He is telling callers he can place someone in line for $36 an hour, and he suggests they start them at midnight.

…..

Most days, many attendees are tourists who wait in the line that allows 30 people at a time to get a three-minute glimpse of the proceedings.

Some attorneys hoping for a seat during the health-care arguments have plunked down $200 to join the Supreme Court Bar, which has its own line that some people predict will be shorter than the lines for the public. Members also have access to a 60-seat lawyers’ lounge where they can listen to a live audio feed.

“There’s a point when it becomes an endurance race,” said Ian Millhiser, an analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, who is weighing how early to arrive in line. “This is going to involve insane amounts of wait.”

Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who filed a friend of the court, or amicus curiae, brief for the House and Senate Democratic leadership, said attorneys on such briefs typically get a seat.

“But in this case, there are more authors of amicus briefs than there are seats,” Mr. Dellinger said. He was still waiting Thursday to hear from the court clerk.

Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, was a catalyst for the health-care challenge after writing a 2009 article on why he thought the legislation was unconstitutional.

He attended all the lower-court appeals arguments and became one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

“I wasn’t even sure if I was going to get in,” Mr. Barnett said. He secured a seat with the plaintiffs, but wasn’t able to get one for his wife, who has attended previous arguments.

“I didn’t ask anybody,” he said. “It was just hopeless.”

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com and Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com.

Questions

1. a) When will the challenge to President Obama's Health Care law be heard by the Supreme Court?
b) What is unusual about the time given to argue this case? (see "Background" below the questions for the answer)

2. a) Define arguments, plaintiff and brief as used in the article.
b) Who are the plaintiffs in this case?

3. a) How many seats are available in the courtroom?
b) How are these seats distributed?

4. What is the central issue of the case?

5. Why do so many people want to be there in person?

6. How is one entrepreneur hoping to make money from people who wish to attend the arguments?

7. What are some attorneys doing to try to get into the hearings, or at least hear the hearings live?

CHALLENGE: Read the "Background" below the question twice. Explain what types of cases the Supreme Court hears. Explain the main points that will be argued in the case against the health care law.

Background

On the Supreme Court from BensGuide.gpo.gov:

Approximately 7,500 cases are sent to the Supreme Court each year. Out of these, only 80 to 100 are actually heard by the Supreme Court. When a case comes to the Supreme Court, several things happen. First, the Justices decide if a case is worthy of being brought before the Court. In other words, does the case really involve Constitutional or federal law? Secondly, a Supreme Court ruling can affect the outcome of hundreds or even thousands of cases in lower courts around the country. Therefore, the Court tries to use this enormous power only when a case presents a pressing constitutional issue. ...
The Supreme Court convenes the first Monday in October. It stays in session usually until late June of the next year. When they are not hearing cases, the Justices do legal research and write opinions. On Fridays, they meet in private (in "conference") to discuss cases they've heard and to vote on them.
Most cases do not start in the Supreme Court. Usually cases are first brought in front of lower (state or federal) courts. Each disputing party is made up of a petitioner and a respondent.
Once the lower court makes a decision, if the losing party does not think that justice was served, s/he may appeal the case, or bring it to a higher court. In the state court system, these higher courts are called appellate courts. In the federal court system, the lower courts are called United States District Courts and the higher courts are called United States Courts of Appeals.
If the higher court's ruling disagrees with the lower court's ruling, the original decision is overturned. If the higher court's ruling agrees with the lower court's decision, then the losing party may ask that the case be taken to the Supreme Court. But ... only cases involving federal or Constitutional law are brought to the highest court in the land.

How the health care case is different from other challenges heard by the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court arguments over President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul will stretch over three days, beginning March 26, the court said Monday.
A typical case is allotted an hour for argument, but the court scheduled five and a half hours for the health-care case, reflecting how novel some of the questions are and the importance of a dispute that could define the limits of federal power for decades to come. (from wsj.com)

Breakdown of the issues to be argued:

The main part will take place on Tuesday, March 27, with a two-hour argument over the minimum-coverage provision, which starting in 2014 will require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Challengers argue that Congress lacks the power to impose such a requirement, while the Obama administration maintains that it does under its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes and enact any "necessary and proper" laws.
At the March 28 morning session, the court will hear a 90-minute morning argument over which portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as the health law is titled, can survive if the individual-insurance mandate is struck down. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta--the only one of four federal appeals courts to find any portion of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional--held that the balance of the law can stand.
The government, however, argues that if the individual mandate falls, so too must the requirement that insurance companies take all comers and the ban on surcharges for pre-existing conditions. Those two provisions, the government says, are only feasible if the insurance pool is expanded to include younger, healthier people whose premiums will balance the costs.
The challengers, including 26 Republican-controlled states, contend that if the individual mandate goes, the entire Affordable Care Act must also be thrown out.
A one-hour session is scheduled for the afternoon of March 28 to hear those states' claim that provisions expanding the Medicaid program are unconstitutional. The states say Congress can't force them to spend more on Medicaid. The Atlanta court rejected that argument, holding that states knew that Washington could change the terms of the Medicaid program when they joined it and remain free to withdraw from Medicaid entirely if they prefer.
A less-discussed issue is to be argued first, for one hour on March 26. The question is whether the entire case needs to be shelved because of a federal law requiring taxpayers to pay their assessments before challenging a levy's legality. One federal appeals court, in Richmond, Va., found this law applies to the Affordable Care Act.
That court found that the penalty for noncompliance, which is to be collected by the Internal Revenue Service along with individual tax returns, was similar enough to a tax to fall under the provision. Both the Obama administration and the challengers disagree, but the Supreme Court was sufficiently interested in the question to schedule a hearing anyway and hire an attorney to present the argument. (from wsj.com)

State attorneys general:

State attorneys general possess many of the same powers and responsibilities as their counterpart in the federal government. A state attorney general's office is typically a part of the executive branch of the state government. He or she is generally entrusted with the duties of prosecuting suits and proceedings involving state government and advising the governor and other administrative officers of the state government. Many state statutes also establish the state attorney general as the official legal advisor or representative of various departments and agencies. (from the Legal Dictionary)