A conservative judge's 'compelling' defense of 'ObamaCare'
A D.C. appellate court upholds a key provision of President Obama's health care reform law. Is Supreme Court support now inevitable?

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals became the third appellate court to uphold the individual mandate that all Americans buy health insurance — a critical part of President Obama's health care reform law. "ObamaCare" supporters see this as an especially important victory, as the majority opinion was written by Laurence Silberman, a conservative judge nominated by Ronald Reagan. The Supreme Court is expected to meet as soon as Thursday to decide whether to take up the issue next year. Is Silberman's unexpected ruling a fatal blow to "ObamaCare" foes?
This is a huge win for Obama: Silberman's opinion "is perhaps the most compelling defense" of the Affordable Care Act to date, and a "big get for the White House," says Adam Sorensen at TIME. Silberman flatly told the law's opponents, "I don't see anything in the Constitution that supports you." Though his "biting" ruling won't end the debate, favorable opinions from conservative jurists like Silberman should surely have the Obama administration "feeling confident that its signature legislative achievement will survive."
"In D.C. Circuit Court health reform ruling, a big get for the White House"
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
And Silberman's argument is dead on: The conservative judge states quite strongly that Congress has "broad powers over interstate commerce," says Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. Silberman knows that Congress has the right to "forge national solutions to national problems" — the same rationale that let the federal government force restaurants to serve customers of all races applies to the individual mandate. So "while it's possible to faithfully read the Constitution as prohibiting the requirement that everybody pay for health care, doing so would require junking a bunch of important Supreme Court precedents." This is a strong argument — and a good omen for proponents of "ObamaCare."
"'ObamaCare' wins another round in court"
Opponents still stand a chance: I'm disappointed that Silberman upheld the individual mandate, says Jay Sekulow at the American Center for Law and Justice. Still, the three-judge panel's 2-1 decision confirms that "courts are split about this flawed health care law." I'm still "confident" that "ObamaCare" and its individual mandate "is the wrong prescription for America," and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
"'ObamaCare' decision disappointing — appeal to come"
Everything is still up in the air: This appellate court "has no greater impact" on the Supreme Court's ultimate ruling than any of the other appellate courts that have already weighed in, says Rick Ungar at Forbes. Sure, many conservative intellectuals thought Silberman would brand the individual mandate illegal. He didn't. But that doesn't mean Supreme Court justices will follow suit. "Any guess as to how SCOTUS may ultimately decide this matter is pure speculation" — we simply won't know "until the moment the fat lady finally sings."
"D.C. Court of Appeals upholds Constitutionality of 'ObamaCare,' stuns conservatives"
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Scientists want to fight malaria by poisoning mosquitoes with human blood
Under the radar Drugging the bugs
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Crossword: March 31, 2025
The Week's daily crossword
By The Week Staff Published
-
Sudoku medium: March 31, 2025
The Week's daily medium sudoku puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
By The Week Staff Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published