4:33 p.m. Today’s live blog is ending. Be sure to check back to the main blog page tomorrow for more analysis about the health care reform cases from Bloomberg and other sources.
4:30 p.m. Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr reviews highlights of today’s arguments with Bloomberg Law’s Spencer Mazyck.
3:57 p.m. On the lawn at the U.S. Capitol after today’s arguments ended, a group of attorneys general who had sued over the law said the justices’ questions vindicated legal action they said was ridiculed when first filed, Bloomberg News’ Laura Litvan reports.
“Over two years ago, the talking heads and the pundits accused us of not being appropriate lawyers on behalf of the people that we represent by saying we were bringing matters that really were not important,” said Lawrence Wasden, the Republican attorney general of Idaho. “I think today, and the last three days, indicated that in fact we did bring up matters that were important. The court could not get enough of the arguments that we were presenting.”
“I think 100 years from now this case will go down as a landmark case on where does the power of the federal government end? What does federalism truly mean?” said Luther Strange, Alabama’s attorney general and also a Republican. “It has practical impacts on religious freedom and on the economies of our states, but more than that it’s a fundamental principle that will ripple across this country.”
3:38 p.m. The afternoon session’s audio file and transcript have been posted on the court’s website.
3:30 p.m. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston suggests that, if the court is feeling bold, the Medicaid expansion will be struck down:
Unless a closing oration by a top government lawyer stirs some real sympathy for the poor, the new health care law’s broad expansion of the Medicaid program that serves the needy may be sacrificed to a historic expression of judicial sympathy for states’ rights. It probably would require the Court to be really bold, to strike down a program passed by Congress under its spending power, and to do so for the first time in 76 years, but the temptation was very much in evidence in the final round of the Court’s hearings this week on the Affordable Care Act. It probably would be done by a 5-4 vote.
3:26 p.m. Cut Don Verrilli some slack, suggests former Obama White House spokesman Reid Cherlin on the website of GQ.
It would have been easy for Verrilli—or any of us—to explain single-payer health care. “Look,” we could have said, “the government is paying for everyone to have coverage.” End of story. But single-payer is not what our brilliant, world-leading political system gave us. What it gave us is essentially a halfsy—an extraordinarily confusing patchwork in which some novel legislative mechanisms are used to induce individuals, businesses, insurance companies, and states into doing things that add up to concrete good.
3:19 p.m. Bloomberg News’ Laurie Asseo reports Verrilli and Clement went philosophical at the end of their presentations:
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, wrapping up his argument in the case, urged the justices to view the health care law as helping Americans “secure the blessings of liberty.” Congress struggled for years to find a way to provide health insurance so the cost of care won’t push people into bankruptcy, he said.
Whether Congress’s decision was right is “something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and vote,” Verrilli said. Congress made a policy judgment, and “I would urge this court to respect that judgment” and uphold the entire health care law, he said.
In response, attorney Paul Clement, representing the states that challenged the law, said the solicitor general spelled out a “funny concept of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not.”
3:15 p.m. Bloomberg News has one of the more amusing quotes of the afternoon:
“Can you conceive of any state saying no” to additional federal Medicaid funds, Justice Antonin Scalia asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli , who defended the measure. “And if you can’t, that sounds like coercion,” Scalia said.
3:10 p.m. Bloomberg TV’s Megan Hughes reviews the afternoon session:
2:45 p.m. About the afternoon session, the Wall Street Journal reports: “Solicitor General Verrilli faced a barrage of tough questions from the court’s conservative wing, meaning the legality of the Medicaid expansion may be a much closer call than many court watchers expected going in.”
2:41 p.m. Writing after the arguments concluded, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein says: “In the second half of the argument there were more voices, including Justice Alito, [calling] for the idea that the Medicaid expansion is coercive but it did not seem at all a likely outcome.”
2:37 p.m. From Keith Jaasma, a Houston intellectual property lawyer who tweets haiku about the Supreme Court:
2:34 p.m. If we had presses, we’d stop them: Jeffrey Toobin has something positive to say about the Administration’s case.
2:28 p.m. Returning, just for a moment, to the morning session — the New York Times is spotlighting several humorous exchanges:
Addressing Edwin S. Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general representing the Obama administration, Justice Scalia said, “what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages [in the statute]?” After a burst of laughter in the room, he added: “And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
After Justice Sonya Sotomayor cut in to suggest, “I thought the answer was you don’t have to because what we have to look at is what Congress said was essential, correct?” Mr. Kneedler said: “That is correct.” He continued: “I just want to finish the thought I had about this being a matter of statutory interpretation. The Court’s task, we submit, is not to look at the legislative process to see whether the bill would been — would have passed or not based on the political situation at the time, which would basically convert the Court into a function such as a whip count.”
Moments later, Justice Elena Kagan observed, “that would be a revolution in our severability law, wouldn’t it?” She added: “I mean, we have never suggested that we were going to say, look, this legislation was a brokered compromise and we are going to try to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street and figure out whether they would have made a difference. Instead, we look at the text that’s actually given us. For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia’s clerks.”
When that last line earned another peal of laughter in the courtroom, Justice Scalia joked, “I don’t care whether it’s easy for my clerks. I care whether it’s easy for me.”
2:26 p.m. The oral arguments have concluded. More updates on what was said are upcoming.
2:17 p.m. The court extended the afternoon session by 20 minutes. From SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein:
6 hours wasn’t enough. The Court has added roughly 20 minutes to the Medicaid argument by keeping Clement up for an extra 10. So far in the [Solicitor General's] argument, significant pressure from the conservatives to acknowledge some line beyond which threats to funding are coercive. But no strong questions that this particular extension goes too far. So far, it looks safe.
2:03 p.m. Bloomberg News is reporting:
U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic presidents defended Congress’s power in President Barack Obama’s health care law to expand the Medicaid insurance program for the poor over objections from 26 states.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she couldn’t recall a “federal program struck down because it’s so good it becomes coercive to be in it.”
Justice Stephen Breyer minimized concerns by the states that the government is wrongly coercing them because they risk losing all Medicaid funding if they refuse to participate in the health care law’s expansion of coverage for millions of additional people. Breyer said the 2010 health- care statute doesn’t add any threat to a state’s Medicaid funding that hasn’t been in the law since the mid-1960s.
1:56 p.m. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Paul Clement has had a hard time convincing any of the justices of his position, with tough questioning throughout his presentation.
Justice Kagan challenged Mr. Clement to explain whether he would still be saying that the provision was coercive if the federal government agreed to pick up 100% of the tab permanently. He’s arguing that it is, because the government is insisting that the states comply with the expansion as a condition of remaining in the 45-year-old Medicaid program at all.
1:52 p.m. Bloomberg News is reporting:
Justice Sotomayor: “We’re going to tie the hands of the federal government”
Justice Ginsburg said there are states that like the expansion. She continued: You’re saying because you represent a large number of states, the whole program could be destroyed, even though some states like it.
1:48 p.m. From the afternoon session, the Wall Street Journal reports:
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices have been peppering Paul Clement with a host of skeptical questions about his argument that the health law unfairly coerces the states into growing their Medicaid program Wednesday afternoon.
Mr. Clement made it about ten seconds into his argument before being cut off by Justice Elena Kagan. “Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?” she asked. “It’s just a boatload of federal money. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, let me tell you.”
1:45 p.m. Bloomberg Businessweek writer Paul M. Barrett weighs in on the “jurisprudence of Jeffrey,” as in CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:
Toobin [this morning] did not retreat from his prediction that the Affordable Care Act will go down on a 5-4 party-line vote. He might be correct about that. Or Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts may harbor anxieties about destabilizing judicial precedent going back to the New Deal era that has, until this case, been widely understood to provide lawmakers with nearly comprehensive authority to regulate the world’s largest economy.
We’ll see in June or July, when the justices are expected to rule. Meanwhile, don’t read too much into poor Don Verrilli’s bad day in the spotlight.
1:25 p.m. As we wait for word to trickle out of this afternoon’s session, here are links to how some of the major media outlets reported the morning session:
- Bloomberg News: Some Justices Suggest Preserving Part of Health-Care Law
- NY Times: Justices Ask if Health Law Is Viable Without Mandate
- Washington Post: On health-care hearing’s last day, court weighs severability, Medicaid expansion
- Reuters: Supreme court struggles with entire healthcare law’s fate
- Associated Press: Some Supreme Court justices seem open to parts of health care law
1:02 p.m. Bloomberg TV’s Meghan Hughes reports about this morning’s session:
12:42 p.m. Audio from this morning’s arguments has been posted by the court. A transcript is expected to be posted shortly on the same page.
12:30 p.m. Bettors on Intrade, the online prediction market, are now wagering that the individual mandate will be struck down by the court — a reversal of the prediction prior to yesterday’s arguments. As of 12:30 pm ET today, the site was posting odds of 62 percent that the mandate would be found unconstitutional by the end of this year, and 61 percent that the same result would obtain by the end of 2013. Just last Friday, the same odds were 37 percent and 45 percent, respectively.
12:26 p.m. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston takes a view contrary to the early analysis from most quarters, saying this morning’s arguments may actually improve the chances the individual mandate is kept in place:
The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.
12:19 p.m. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin is continuing to see big problems for the Administration’s arguments. “At
#scotus, still a train wreck, maybe also a plane wreck for @barackobama,” he tweets. “I think the individual mandate is gone, based on the questioning,” he said on air after the morning argument, the New York Times reports. “It sure looks like there are at least five votes to get rid of this law.”
12:13 p.m. Looks like Justice Scalia would toss the whole statute if the individual mandate is struck. “My approach would be, if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute’s gone,” he said, Bloomberg News is reporting.
12:07 p.m. The full Bloomberg News story from the morning session, reported in discrete takes below, is now online.
12:05 p.m. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog filed this update after the morning session:
The Court is really struggling with severability. Generally speaking, the more conservative the member the more likely they were to believe that more would have to be invalidated. Justice Scalia would strike down the entire Act. Most likely would be guarantee issue, community rating and some other pieces essential to keeping insurance prices low. Tea leaves suggested that Justice Kennedy would vote to invalidate the mandate but nothing super-clear. Farr was excellent.
12:00 p.m. Meanwhile, here’s a look at the three cases decided this morning, from Bloomberg News’ Bob Drummond:
In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled that the government can be sued only for financial harm from violations of the federal Privacy Act, rejecting a claim by a California pilot who sought to conceal that he was HIV-positive. The case is FAA v. Cooper, 10-10-24.
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court said a 1996 immigration law, which lets the government deny re-entry to the U.S. by legal immigrants who have committed crimes, doesn’t apply retroactively to people convicted of wrongdoing before the law took effect. The decision allows permanent residents with earlier convictions to leave the U.S. for brief periods without risking deportation when they return. The case is Vartelas v. Holder, 10-1211.
The justices ruled, 6-3, that a federal judge can sentence a defendant to a prison term that runs consecutively with a separate sentence in a state court proceeding. The case is Setser v. U.S., 10-7387.
11:50 a.m. This morning’s argument has ended. More updates coming over the lunch recess. Court begins again at 1 p.m. ET.
11:41 a.m. Bloomberg News has more about how justices are framing this morning’s arguments with their questions:
If the court strikes down the requirement to have health coverage, insurance companies want the justices also to toss out provisions that forbid them from refusing coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions.
Justice Elena Kagan said there was a “sharp dividing line” between those provisions and the other parts of the law. She said the case may be one in which “half a loaf is better.”
Still, Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it would be a “more extreme” exercise of judicial power to strike down some of the statute rather than all of it.
11:25 a.m. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog provides an update two-thirds of the way through this morning’s argument, just as the government’s case ended:
So far it is hard to see where this one is going. Almost all of the Justices asked Clement questions, and many were skeptical of his argument that if the mandate and the provisions link to it go, all that would be left is a hollow shell.
But Ed Kneedler [arguing for the government] also faced skeptical questions, especially from the more conservative Justices, who asked him how the Court should figure out what other provisions must go. Are we supposed to go through the whole 2700 pages, they asked? (Justice Scalia suggested that this would violate the Eighth Amendment.)
11:22 a.m. Bloomberg News updates:
“The bottom line is why don’t we let Congress fix it” instead of throwing out the entire law, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Why make Congress redo those?” Ginsburg said. It would be better to let Congress decide “whether it wants them in or out,” she said.
11:17 a.m. More from the Wall Street Journal:
Chief Justice John Roberts has asked several questions of Mr. Clement that further the case for striking down the whole law, and echo other remarks from Justices Alito and Scalia.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sought to argue that the most legally conservative position is to uphold the law. If the justices have to choose between “a wrecking operation and a salvage job, a more conservative approach would be a salvage job,” she said.
11:10 a.m. The Wall Street Journal is characterizing this morning’s argument as a battle between the conservative and liberal wings of the court, with the judges squaring off against each other:
Conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito have seemed to endorse Mr. Clement’s case. Justice Scalia has been responding frequently to Justice Sotomayor’s remarks, pointing to what he calls “legislative inertia” as a reason not to leave the decision of how much of the law to keep to Congress. Justice Alito, meanwhile, has argued that if the judges are considering what Congress intended when it passed the legislation, they should probably consider that the legislation wouldn’t have passed without its cornerstone provision, the individual mandate.
10:50 a.m. More from Bloomberg News:
Chief Justice John Roberts said the law includes health-related items, such as black-lung benefits, that have “nothing to do” with the individual health insurance mandate. Congress would have passed those measures anyway, he said.
Justice Elena Kagan said there was a “sharp dividing line” between those provisions and the other parts of the law.
10:48 a.m. Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo of Bloomberg News report that several justices have suggested this morning that they may leave much of President Obama’s health care law intact even if they strike down the requirement that Americans buy insurance.
The court would be faced with “a choice between a wrecking operation or a salvage job,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said early during the third day of arguments on the health-care law, adding that she would prefer salvaging other parts of the measure.
10:40 a.m. Reverend Rob Schenck lead a prayer session in front of the Supreme Court at 10:15 a.m. this morning, Bloomberg News’ Drew Armstrong reports. He offered prayers that the justices and the clerks 0verturn the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered a possible swing vote in the case, got a special prayer. “We lift him up to you,” Schenck said, as he asked God to reveal “truth and righteousness.” Schenck is president of the National Clergy Council, a multi-denominational religious organization.
10:34 a.m. Criticism of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has been so intense the White House has put out a statement that he won’t be sacked, USA Today reports. “Mr. Verrilli is an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment, and unquestionable integrity,” White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said. “He ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court yesterday, and we have every confidence that he will continue to do so.”
10:26 a.m. The cost to protect against losses on the debt of U.S. health care companies is rising as investors hedge against potential declines when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on President Barack Obama’s landmark health law, according to Bloomberg News reporters Heather Perlberg and Sridhar Natarajan.
Credit-default swaps linked to hospital operators HCA Holdings Inc., Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Community Health Systems Inc. are poised for the biggest monthly increase since September, climbing an average 79 basis points to 595 basis points, according to data provider CMA. Swaps on HCA, the biggest U.S. hospital chain, reached the highest relative to a benchmark in more than five months on March 26, the day before a new version of the index started trading.
Investors are buying protection against a decline in health- care company bonds as the nation’s highest court wraps up three days of hearings challenging the constitutionality of the health law, which expands insurance to cover about 32 million people who would otherwise lack it. Several justices expressed skepticism yesterday that the law is constitutional.
10:19 a.m. The final day of the health care oral arguments has begun. The court issued opinions in three unrelated cases this morning. The opinions are below; details to follow.
9:21 a.m. Expect media reports from the morning session to be sketchier than usual. With the afternoon session beginning at 1 p.m., “the Court staff will be able to allow perhaps 20 minutes or less for writing initial reports,” SCOTUSblog reports.
9:10 a.m. Politico takes a look at how the health care decisions will affect public perception of the Roberts Court. Supporters of the law think that “if the court again splits along a traditional conservative-liberal fault line, the health care debate will further erode the ideal of the court as an impartial arbiter and cast doubt on Roberts’s own idyllic description of his role as judicial ‘umpire’ laid out during his 2005 confirmation hearings.”
But defenders of Roberts don’t see it that way.
“People are assuming this one will be 5-4, too, so people will say that proves we’re judicial activists. But it’s my sense that reasonable people will come to different conclusions,” said former Thomas clerk Dan Himmelfarb, who has argued 11 cases before the high court.
”I don’t see this case being like Bush v. Gore or abortion cases, where you can just accuse one side or the other as being nakedly political. … To me, it’s a case involving the reach of federal power under the Commerce Clause that has legal and jurisprudential significance beyond politics.”
8:58 a.m. About 60 people are in the public spectator line this morning, reports Bloomberg TV’s Megan Hughes. The demonstrations have a mellower vibe, with Abba’s “Dancing Queen,” the Beatles’ “Here Comes the Sun,” and Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together” on the morning playlist.
8:17 a.m. The scene outside the court is considerably calmer today than it was yesterday, reports Bloomberg News’ Drew Armstrong. As of 7:30 a.m., about 20 supporters of the law were present, along with about 10 opposing the law. Media outnumbered demonstrators. He sent along these photos:
7:54 a.m. SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein — himself an accomplished Supreme Court advocate — has kind words for the lawyers on both sides of yesterday’s session. He’s particularly complimentary of Paul Clement:
As good as Don Verrilli was, Paul Clement was even better. It was the best argument I’ve ever heard . . . His ability to parry difficult questions and press forward the heart of his argument was astonishing.
7:35 a.m. Were yesterday’s arguments merely an example of lawyers’ contrasting styles, or contrasting effectiveness? The National Law Journal provides a review of how both sides fared.
An example of the criticism unleashed on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli came from CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin, who said the argument was a “train wreck” for the government. Toobin asserted that Verrilli had done a “simply awful” job and was not “ready with good answers,” the paper reports.
The site Buzz Feed even put together a tape of some of Verrilli’s argument lowlights:
But the difference may be more about optics than effectiveness, defenders of Verrilli told the paper:
But just as quickly, supporters of the law came to Verrilli’s defense, asserting that the contrasting styles of the lawyers who argued Tuesday should not obscure the fact that the SG had made all the points he had intended to make in defense of the law as a constitutional approach to solving a national economic problem. “Don is little more formal, more understated, but at the end of the day, he did an admirable job,” said Douglas Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which supports the law. Kendall also said press coverage of the arguments has overlooked the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Anthony Kennedy questioned Clement and Carvin skeptically, making them possible votes for the government’s position.
7:23 a.m. Bloomberg News’ Hans Nichols looks at what lobbyists and law firms are telling their clients about yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments:
7:10 a.m. There was one clear winner at yesterday’s arguments — broccoli. The nutrient-rich vegetable banned from the White House by President George H.W. Bush two decades ago — he hated having been forced to eat it as a child — was mentioned eight times yesterday, Bloomberg News reports.
[Justices] Scalia and Roberts . . . said food is something everyone has to buy sooner or later. “Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,” Scalia said, challenging the arguments made by the government’s lawyer.
The United Fresh Produce Association, a trade group for the fruit and vegetable industry, welcomed the attention without weighing in on the debate, an issue in the 2012 campaign.
“From banned in the White House to the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Ray Gilmer, spokesman for the group. “Broccoli is getting respect.”
6:52 a.m. The New York Times summarizes the argument the Administration will make later today:
If the mandate falls, the Justice Department has said, two politically popular provisions must die naturally with it — those that prohibit insurers from declining coverage or charging higher premiums because of pre-existing medical conditions. The economic argument is that it would be unreasonable to expect health insurers to cover the sickest Americans if the healthiest ones are not required to pay for coverage and broaden the actuarial pool.
[M]any other components — and the taxes to pay for them — could remain in place even if the mandate and related insurance regulations are struck down. They include a vast expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the establishment of health insurance exchanges, offering subsidized coverage to those with low incomes, both scheduled to start in 2014.
6:41 a.m. There have been a lot of terrific photographs taken in front of the Supreme Court this week, both by professionals and amateurs. This is one of those, from Diego Radzinschi of the National Law Journal:
6:35 a.m. In what is, for her, an unusually political review of yesterday’s arguments, Dahlia Lithwick writes in Slate:
This case isn’t so much about freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms. It’s about freedom from our obligations to one another, freedom from the modern world in which we live. It’s about the freedom to ignore the injured, walk away from those in peril, to never pick up the phone or eat food that’s been inspected. It’s about the freedom to be left alone. And now we know the court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it’s 1804.
6:27 a.m. Over at The Atlantic, Andrew Cohen takes a contrarian view of yesterday’s arguments. The individual mandate may not be in as much trouble as most observers think, he says:
I sometimes see the justices in these high profile cases as dogs on a leash (stick with me here for just a moment). They bark a lot during oral argument — sometimes to publicly express a sense of their own perspective or frustration, sometimes to push the attorneys to define the contours of an argument, sometimes because they want to make a point to one of their colleagues on the bench. But at all times, they are supposed to be tethered by the leash — restrained by the language of the law, by their own precedent, and by the cases their predecessors have handed down to them.
Sometimes the leash holds. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes the barking is just for show. Sometimes the barking is a warning that change is about to come. The challenge for court observers, especially in cases like this, is to determine which is which. The initial wisdom from the commetariat coming out of Tuesday’s argument, after all the barking by Court conservatives, is that the insurance mandate is in trouble. I’m not so sure. The transcript reads better for the feds than the argument sounded. And sometimes dogs bark because they know they can’t or won’t be unleashed. Sometimes, even, they bark just because they can.
6:20 a.m. Highlights of yesterday’s arguments on the individual mandate are summarized by Bloomberg BNA’s Tom Taylor.
6:06 a.m. Welcome to the final day of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the health care reform cases. This is your live blog to all the action. Reload this page throughout the day for our latest updates.
The court has a doubleheader today. Starting shortly after 10 a.m. ET — following the conclusion of announcements of decisions in other cases — the court begins 90 minutes on the question of severability. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, must the remainder of the law also be struck, or can all or parts of the rest of it survive?
Then after a lunch break, the court reconvenes at 1 p.m. for an hour of arguments on the question of whether the Congress can require states to expand the Medicaid program.
If you’re just getting up to speed on today’s issues, you can get a briefing on severability from Columbia University School of Law Professor Abbe Gluck in this Bloomberg Law interview:
Roger Pilon, founder and director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, discusses the Medicaid issue in this Bloomberg Law video: