Supremes will hear Obamacare case (no surprise)

SOURCE

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68300.html

11-393 ) NAT. FED'N INDEP. BUSINESS V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
)
11-400 ) FLORIDA, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-393 is
granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 11-400 is
granted limited to the issue of severability presented by
Question 3 of the petition. The cases are consolidated and a
total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111411zor.pdf

Here's the summary of the Florida case:

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
State of FLORIDA, by and through ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of South Carolina, by and through Attorney General, State of Nebraska, by and through Attorney General, State of Texas, by and through Attorney General, State of Utah, by and through Attorney General, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees–Cross–Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of the Treasury, Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury, United States Department of Labor, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees.

Nos. 11–11021, 11–11067.
Aug. 12, 2011.

Background: Twenty-six states, private individuals, and organization of independent businesses brought action against federal Health and Human Services (HHS), Treasury, and Labor Departments and their Secretaries, challenging constitutionality of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, No. 3:10-CV-00091-RV-EMT, Roger Vinson, Senior District Judge, 780 F.Supp.2d 1256, 2011 WL 285683, granted summary judgment to the government on the state plaintiffs' claim that the Act's expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional, and concluded that the individual mandate exceeded congressional authority, and that the individual mandate provision was not severable from the rest of the Act, and declared the entire Act invalid. The District Court further clarified its order and entered a stay pending appeal, 780 F.Supp.2d 1307, 2011 WL 723117. The government appealed, and the state plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court's ruling on their Medicaid expansion claim.


Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Dubina, Chief Judge, and Hull, Circuit Judge, held that:
(1) Act's expansion of the Medicaid program, enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause, was not so unduly coercive as to violate Tenth Amendment's restriction on the use of the spending power to encourage state legislation;
(2) individual mandate exceeded the boundaries of Congress's enumerated power under Commerce Clause;
(3) individual mandate operated as a civil regulatory penalty, not a tax, and therefore could not be authorized pursuant to Taxing and Spending Clause; and
(4) unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the remainder of the Act's myriad reforms.