In February 2011, Alexander Bolton wrote in The Hill that the consensus among legal experts had largely changed as a result of Judge Roger Vinson`s decision in Florida et al. against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bolton said that prior to the decision, it was widely accepted that the Supreme Court would uphold the law by a comfortable margin, but now legal scholars generally believe it would be a 5-4 decision. Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said: “There has been a big shift in conventional wisdom. the temperature of law professors has changed dramatically” and described Florida`s decision as “extremely profound in its discussion of constitutional principles and doctrine.”  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), numerous lawsuits have taken place in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of the law.   These include state challenges to the ACA, reactions from legal experts regarding its constitutionality, several Federal Court decisions on the constitutionality of the ACA, and the final decision on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent prosecutions against the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld the ACA for the third time in a June 2021 decision.  The Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were not eligible, effectively dismissing the lawsuit filed by 18 Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration. The ACA remains the law of the land, after the defeat of a case that legal experts across the political spectrum considered extremely weak. Petition for the order of Certiorari.
(unofficially referred to as the “Cert petition.”) A document that a losing party files with the Supreme Court and asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It contains a list of the parties, a description of the facts, the points of law subject to review and arguments as to why the Court should make the application. The 5th District issued a 2:1 decision deeming the individual warrant unconstitutional and referring the case back to the trial court for further analysis of whether the rest of the ACA can survive. The case raises three main issues: (A) are the parties entitled to rely on the jurisdiction of the court; (B) whether the individual mandate of the ACA, as amended by the TCJA, is constitutional; and (C) whether the mandate is unconstitutional, whether it can be separated from the rest of the ACA or, conversely, whether other provisions of the ACA must also be declared invalid. Figure 4 illustrates the legal issues and possible outcomes of the case. The Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit, Sissel v. U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the ACA was still unconstitutional, even given the “life-saving construction” under the law in NFIB v. Sebelius, arguing that the issuance of the essential cover warrant violated the origination clause.
  The action also asked the District Court to clarify the extent to which the lower courts were legally bound by the finding of Roberts C.J. and the four dissenting judges that the law had not been subject to constitutional scrutiny by the necessary and appropriate trade clauses and clauses.  On June 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the applicant`s action on the basis that (1) the Supreme Court`s challenge to the ACA in NFIB v. Sebelius, (2) that the challenge to the origination clause failed because the bill that enacts the individual mandate was not a bill to increase revenues, and (3) that even though the bill enacting the individual mandate was a bill to increase revenues, the challenge to the origination clause failed because the bill was an amendment to a law, which came from the House of Representatives.  On July 29, 2014, this decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.   However, the Court of Appeal found that section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code (sometimes referred to as an “individual mandate”) was not a “bill to increase revenues” and was therefore not subject to the restriction in the original clause of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was therefore no reason for the court to determine whether the bill originated in the House of Representatives.  The court also rejected Sissel`s claim that the law violated the commercial clause of the Constitution, stating that the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius “necessarily disposes of the claim of Sissel`s commercial clause”.
 The future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remains uncertain, as the constitutionality of the law is again being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in California against constitutionality. Texas1 (known as Texas v. U.S. in lower courts). The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, 2020. This ongoing litigation calls into question the ACA`s minimum coverage provision (known as the individual mandate) and raises questions about the survival of the entire law. The individual mandate states that most people must maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage; Those who fail to do so will have to pay a fine (the so-called shared responsibility payment) to the IRS. The individual mandate was established as a constitutional exercise of Congressional fiscal powers by a majority of five members of the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012. The legal language that opposes reforms varies from state to state and includes laws and constitutional amendments as well as binding and non-binding state decisions.