My Magic 8 Ball Says-There are three possible outcomes for a Supreme Court Ruling next week- Overturned

By Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, GBA, CFCI

Co-CEO of

Susie Playman, Director of Marketing

Interesting ruling yesterday by SCOTUS which said unions cannot automatically take “special assessments” during the year from union members and non-union members (non-union members in a closed union shop). Special assessments like this usually come during an election year when a candidate the union sponsors requires more campaign funds. The S-Court said that under the First Amendment, people should be given an “opt in” choice. (Very interesting thinking.) Does this ruling forecast next week’s S-Court ruling on the insurance mandate? Perhaps.

The government’s premise is that everyone must buy insurance or suffer a penalty. But now that the union case is closed, will the S-Court strike down the mandate to purchase insurance? I predict YES.

There are three possible outcomes for a Supreme Court Ruling next week:

1.      If it comes on Wednesday or Thursday, the last “in session” day before the S-Court adjourns until October, I think the court will cancel the entire law.

2.      If it comes on Monday, the S-Court will eliminate the mandate only and send the law back to Congress for revision.

3.      The S-Court will preserve the law entire law.

Regarding option 1 and 2, if the mandate to buy insurance is declared unconstitutional, but the rest of the health care law remains intact, the effect would be the same as the cancelling the entire law. Why? Because the mandate to purchase insurance provides the funding mechanism for the whole law. Without the primary funding mechanism–the mandate to buy insurance–the other 2,600 pages of laws fall like a house of cards.


My theory and prognostication comes from reviewing this area of the blog:

<Snip>This morning, the Court also issued its opinion in Knox v. SEIU, holding that employees who decline to join their public-sector union have a First Amendment right not to be compelled, without notice and the opportunity to object, to pay special assessments for political activities. Coverage comes from CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press (via The Washington Post), Forbes, the ABA Journal, UPI, Education Week’s School Law blog, the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog, Point of Law, and the Purple Wisconsin. Commentary comes from Cato@Liberty, the American Spectator, and the American Prospect. <un-snip>