It’s an interesting question that is getting a lot of press, and one I find particularly interesting given that it wasn’t an argument advanced by the government. “Sometimes we think of things the government doesn’t,” Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments that occurred earlier this month. In a nutshell, a decision in favor of the petitioners could result in a state being coerced – a serious constitutional problem – into creating a health exchange to avoid sending their insurance markets into a death spiral. We know this argument resonates with the Justices because it was a deciding factor in the Court's decision on Medicaid expansion. This article from The Washington Post offers a nice explanation of the issue.
Go to full article: washingtonpost.com