Thread by @charles_gaba

⚠️ Guess what, everyone? That's right: It's Yet Another U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Issuance Day!

Come back starting at 10:00am to see whether they decide to tear away healthcare coverage for up to 34 million Americans based on the most absurdly stupid case imaginable!

There's around ~20 cases left for SCOTUS to issue opinions on this term including the #ACA case...which still might be bumped until later this month (I believe the term ends on June 30th).

They wait 10 minutes between each opinion being released, so it could be a long morning...

Once again, there's basically 4 possible ways the SCOTUS could rule on the #ACA case. Two of them would be fine. One would be pretty awful. One would be absolute disaster.
acasignups.net/21/06/17/here-…

Scenario 1: They throw the whole case out. This is what SHOULD happen.

Scenario 2: They strike down the individual mandate language but that's it...the rest of the law is left intact. This is the most likely scenario. Irritating since it's such a stupid case but otherwise fine.

Scenario 3: They strike down the mandate language *and* the ACA provisions *directly related to it*, most likely protections for pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue, community rating, essential health benefits)...but leave the rest of the law in place.

Scenario 3 would be awful for anyone w/a pre-existing condition (~54 - 130 million Americans depending on your definition), which includes anyone who's ever tested positive for COVID, by the way.

It would also create a logistical nightmare for the insurance industry.

Scenario 4 would be the nuclear bomb: SCOTUS strikes down the ENTIRE #ACA (or nearly all of it).

Here's a *partial* list of the consequences of that happening:

⚠️ TWO MINUTE WARNING...

Again, the opinions are released every 10 minutes starting at 10:00am. We'll know when they're done for the day if there's an "R" number next to the docket listing on the SCOTUS website.

Follow @SCOTUSblog for more details; I'll be cross-posting here.

📣 FIRST OPINION OF THE DAY:

CALIFORNIA VS. TEXAS!!!

📣📣 "The Court holds that the plaintiffs do not have standing (a legal right to sue) to challenge the individual mandate because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct. It is by Justice Breyer."

--via @SCOTUSblog

It's 7-2!! (Alito & Gorsuch are the dissenters)

"Court does not reach the other questions (on the validity of the mandate or the severability question).

"We proceed no further than standing,"...Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are fairly traceable to the conduct"

--@SCOTUSblog

"As for the individuals, Breyer writes, they say they have going to have to make payments every month to carry the insurance. But the mandate has no means of enforcement any more; the IRS can't seek a penalty from people who don't buy insurance."

--@SCOTUSblog

I honestly thought they were gonna strike down the mandate as a token nod to the GOP so they could claim they did "something" about the ACA (scenario #2).

Instead they just threw the case out (scenario #1).

FANTASTIC!!

BLOG ENTRY (IN DEVELOPMENT) (apologies to @CitizenCohn but I *did* say the title was premature...):
acasignups.net/21/06/17/twelv…

.@nicholas_bagley called it from the start, by the way.

Welp. Just wrapped up a podcast interview to discuss the #TexasFoldEm case being dismissed for lack of standing.

I'm gonna go eat lunch now.