My colleagues and I have covered the substance of the Eleventh Circuit ruling that two weeks ago struck down the individual mandate, but where do we go from here? Why hasn't the Supreme Court yet resolved the conflict between that ruling and the Sixth Circuit's from earlier in the summer? When will it do so? A few points:
- The government is now likely to seek en banc review, meaning that they want the entire 10-judge court to review the 3-judge panel's ruling. It's extremely unlikely that the Eleventh Circuit would grant such a motion because the panel is already 2-1 against and the members of the court not on the panel are a 4-3 Republican-appointed majority. You need a majority (6 of 10) to get en banc review, which means the dissenting Judge Stanley Marcus from the panel, plus the three other Democratic appointees, plus two others. Not gonna happen. Thus, a government motion for en banc rehearing would be a purely political ploy to push the eventual Supreme Court decision past the election -- no legal reason to do it. The release of the decision not to grant en banc review (which doesn't require a written opinion) could be delayed, however, by the writing of a dissent from that denial.
- The earliest the Supreme Court could grant cert -- on the existing petition out of the Sixth Circuit -- is the moment after this blogpost goes live. (Note that Cato adjunct scholar Tim Sandefur filed an amicus brief supporting that petition for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which brief he describes here.) More realistically, it would be the week before the term opens for argument in October, right after the so-called long conference, when the justices review and rule on all the petitions that have come in over the summer. But they'll likely wait to get the Eleventh Circuit case because they'd probably rather hear from the 26 states (and their counsel, former solicitor general Paul Clement) than any other plaintiffs. Here's where it gets interesting: Assuming the government asks for en banc review, the plaintiffs could still file their own cert petition because they lost on severability and the Medicaid-coercion issue. Stay tuned.
- I still think this will get to the Court this term one way or another, with argument in the spring and a decision the last week of June.
- No stay of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling is needed because the individual mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014 and that's the only provision that's been struck down. So we don't need to go into the type of analysis we did after Judge Vinson's decision about what the federal government is authorized to do to keep implementing the legislation, in the 26 states or generally.
For more analysis, largely based on the above, see Jennifer Rubin's Washington Post blog.