{"id":4909,"date":"2012-03-02T13:46:22","date_gmt":"2012-03-02T13:46:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/company\/press\/bloomberg-law-and-scotusblog-present-u-s-supreme-court-briefing\/"},"modified":"2012-03-02T13:46:22","modified_gmt":"2012-03-02T13:46:22","slug":"bloomberg-law-and-scotusblog-present-u-s-supreme-court-briefing","status":"publish","type":"press","link":"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/company\/press\/bloomberg-law-and-scotusblog-present-u-s-supreme-court-briefing\/","title":{"rendered":"Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog Present U.S. Supreme Court Briefing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n \n\t\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n \n

What’s really going to be at stake when the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges in late March to President Obama’s health care reform law? To unpack the complicated legal issues, Bloomberg Law <\/a>and SCOTUSblog<\/a> presented a briefing on the constitutionality of the health care reform law at the National Press Club<\/a> in Washington, D.C.<\/span><\/p>\n

The session was a preview of the passions the High Court arguments are likely to engender. Paul Clement,<\/a> who is counsel to the plaintiff states, and Michael Carvin – counsel to another plaintiff, the National Federation of Independent Business – squared off against Neal Katyal<\/a>, who served as Acting Solicitor General during the Obama Administration, and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar<\/a>. SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein refereed the 90-minute spirited discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n

We know you may not have time to watch a 90-minute video, so here are two short clips: <\/span>
1. Neal Katyal explaining why congress required the individual mandate, and 2. Paul Clement describing his definition of the individual mandate. If you really want to watch the entire briefing, you can do so here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n