RadioBDC Logo
Tongues | Joywave Listen Live
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Court appears split on future of health law if mandate is out

Questions focus on expanded care not cited in case

By Tracy Jan
Globe Staff / March 29, 2012
Text size +
  • E-mail
  • E-mail this article

    Invalid E-mail address
    Invalid E-mail address

    Sending your article

    Your article has been sent.

Several Supreme Court justices this afternoon indicated skepticism that making states expand Medicaid coverage to more low-income individuals under President Obama’s health care law amounts to coercion, as states suing the federal government argued. In the third and final day of hearings on the fate of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, Paul Clement, the lawyer representing 26 states opposing the 2010 law, argued that the Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional because Congress ties federal funding for the program with the condition that states enroll millions of new individuals who did not previously qualify.

For more from BostonGlobe.com, sign up or log in below

To continue, please sign up or log in to BostonGlobe.com

Access the full articles and quality reporting of The Boston Globe at BostonGlobe.com

Sign up

Unlimited Access to BostonGlobe.com for 4 weeks for only 99¢.

Are you a Boston Globe home delivery subscriber?

Get FREE access as part of your print subscription.

BostonGlobe.com subscriber

Click to continue reading this article or to log in to BostonGlobe.com.
  • E-mail
  • E-mail this article

    Invalid E-mail address
    Invalid E-mail address

    Sending your article

    Your article has been sent.