The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as Monday whether to accept one of the various challenges to the health care law. Justices met on Thursday to discuss the issue.

It seems likely that the high court will take the case, but it’s hard to predict exactly when it will hear it—or decide it. Arguments most likely would be in February or March, followed by a decision near the end of the term in June.

Outside of the judges’ chambers, everyone wants the case decided, and now. The Obama administration’s Justice Department skipped an appeal and filed a brief early, urging the Court to decide the case this term. The states and conservative groups opposing the law also want a swift decision on the merits, although they obviously hope for a different outcome. And the health care industry has spoken, too: Health insurers, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among the many groups asking the Court not just for a particular ruling but simply to take a case and clear up uncertainties about whether health care reform will proceed.

However, the clamor for a swift and final ruling on the constitutional merits of the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance doesn’t mean that’s what the Court will produce. As an opinion from an influential conservative judge highlighted last week, the justices also have a legal means for postponing their final ruling until after the law is implemented. The opinion also noted that with a “tweak,” Congress could fix any possible problems with the law.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee and a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, echoed an argument made by a more liberal panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent to a D.C. Circuit Court ruling upholding the law, saying that the courts simply don’t have standing to take the case right now. Judges on the left and the right have endorsed this analysis, meaning that the Court should take the question seriously, several constitutional advocates and scholars say.

If nothing else, the Court is likely to ask parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction. That could lead to an awkward outcome, because both the government and the challengers disagree with the argument.

Advocates arguing against the law have described the individual mandate to buy insurance as a sweeping and unprecedented imposition of federal power. In a recent discussion at the Heritage Foundation, David Rivkin Jr. of Baker Hostetler, a lawyer in one of the cases, described the challenges as an excellent test case, where the Court could draw clear lines around what Congress can and cannot do under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

But Kavanaugh’s opinion also highlights how a small legislative change could completely undermine the various challenges to the individual mandate. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to impose taxes. If the drafters of the health care law had structured the payments as a “tax” instead of a “penalty,” then the case would be easy to decide, he said.

“Just a minor tweak to the current statutory language would definitively establish the law’s constitutionality,” Kavanaugh wrote, speculating that the whole debate could be moot by 2015 if Congress were to make the change. On the other side, Congress could certainly eliminate the legal furor if it voted to abolish the individual mandate, or the entire law.

Another highly regarded conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Laurence Silberman, wrote in the majority opinion that the health care law’s individual mandate passed muster whether one looked at the original language of the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s precedents. It is now the third possible template for how the Court could decide the case on the merits; two appeals court panels have found the law to be constitutional, while a third has found it unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh’s position has the appeal of leaving the future of health care reform to the elected branches, should they choose to address it, or at least putting off a hot-button Court decision until after the election. But the Supreme Court has waded into politically difficult waters before: Remember Bush v. Gore? The political volatility of this one could argue for dodging the case—or taking it.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as Monday whether to accept one of the various challenges to the health care law. Justices met on Thursday to discuss the issue.

It seems likely that the high court will take the case, but it’s hard to predict exactly when it will hear it—or decide it. Arguments most likely would be in February or March, followed by a decision near the end of the term in June.

Outside of the judges’ chambers, everyone wants the case decided, and now. The Obama administration’s Justice Department skipped an appeal and filed a brief early, urging the Court to decide the case this term. The states and conservative groups opposing the law also want a swift decision on the merits, although they obviously hope for a different outcome. And the health care industry has spoken, too: Health insurers, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among the many groups asking the Court not just for a particular ruling but simply to take a case and clear up uncertainties about whether health care reform will proceed.

However, the clamor for a swift and final ruling on the constitutional merits of the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance doesn’t mean that’s what the Court will produce. As an opinion from an influential conservative judge highlighted last week, the justices also have a legal means for postponing their final ruling until after the law is implemented. The opinion also noted that with a “tweak,” Congress could fix any possible problems with the law.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee and a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, echoed an argument made by a more liberal panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent to a D.C. Circuit Court ruling upholding the law, saying that the courts simply don’t have standing to take the case right now. Judges on the left and the right have endorsed this analysis, meaning that the Court should take the question seriously, several constitutional advocates and scholars say.

If nothing else, the Court is likely to ask parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction. That could lead to an awkward outcome, because both the government and the challengers disagree with the argument.

Advocates arguing against the law have described the individual mandate to buy insurance as a sweeping and unprecedented imposition of federal power. In a recent discussion at the Heritage Foundation, David Rivkin Jr. of Baker Hostetler, a lawyer in one of the cases, described the challenges as an excellent test case, where the Court could draw clear lines around what Congress can and cannot do under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

But Kavanaugh’s opinion also highlights how a small legislative change could completely undermine the various challenges to the individual mandate. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to impose taxes. If the drafters of the health care law had structured the payments as a “tax” instead of a “penalty,” then the case would be easy to decide, he said.

“Just a minor tweak to the current statutory language would definitively establish the law’s constitutionality,” Kavanaugh wrote, speculating that the whole debate could be moot by 2015 if Congress were to make the change. On the other side, Congress could certainly eliminate the legal furor if it voted to abolish the individual mandate, or the entire law.

Another highly regarded conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Laurence Silberman, wrote in the majority opinion that the health care law’s individual mandate passed muster whether one looked at the original language of the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s precedents. It is now the third possible template for how the Court could decide the case on the merits; two appeals court panels have found the law to be constitutional, while a third has found it unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh’s position has the appeal of leaving the future of health care reform to the elected branches, should they choose to address it, or at least putting off a hot-button Court decision until after the election. But the Supreme Court has waded into politically difficult waters before: Remember Bush v. Gore? The political volatility of this one could argue for dodging the case—or taking it.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as Monday whether to accept one of the various challenges to the health care law. Justices met on Thursday to discuss the issue.

It seems likely that the high court will take the case, but it’s hard to predict exactly when it will hear it—or decide it. Arguments most likely would be in February or March, followed by a decision near the end of the term in June.

Outside of the judges’ chambers, everyone wants the case decided, and now. The Obama administration’s Justice Department skipped an appeal and filed a brief early, urging the Court to decide the case this term. The states and conservative groups opposing the law also want a swift decision on the merits, although they obviously hope for a different outcome. And the health care industry has spoken, too: Health insurers, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among the many groups asking the Court not just for a particular ruling but simply to take a case and clear up uncertainties about whether health care reform will proceed.

However, the clamor for a swift and final ruling on the constitutional merits of the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance doesn’t mean that’s what the Court will produce. As an opinion from an influential conservative judge highlighted last week, the justices also have a legal means for postponing their final ruling until after the law is implemented. The opinion also noted that with a “tweak,” Congress could fix any possible problems with the law.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee and a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, echoed an argument made by a more liberal panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent to a D.C. Circuit Court ruling upholding the law, saying that the courts simply don’t have standing to take the case right now. Judges on the left and the right have endorsed this analysis, meaning that the Court should take the question seriously, several constitutional advocates and scholars say.

If nothing else, the Court is likely to ask parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction. That could lead to an awkward outcome, because both the government and the challengers disagree with the argument.

Advocates arguing against the law have described the individual mandate to buy insurance as a sweeping and unprecedented imposition of federal power. In a recent discussion at the Heritage Foundation, David Rivkin Jr. of Baker Hostetler, a lawyer in one of the cases, described the challenges as an excellent test case, where the Court could draw clear lines around what Congress can and cannot do under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

But Kavanaugh’s opinion also highlights how a small legislative change could completely undermine the various challenges to the individual mandate. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to impose taxes. If the drafters of the health care law had structured the payments as a “tax” instead of a “penalty,” then the case would be easy to decide, he said.

“Just a minor tweak to the current statutory language would definitively establish the law’s constitutionality,” Kavanaugh wrote, speculating that the whole debate could be moot by 2015 if Congress were to make the change. On the other side, Congress could certainly eliminate the legal furor if it voted to abolish the individual mandate, or the entire law.

Another highly regarded conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Laurence Silberman, wrote in the majority opinion that the health care law’s individual mandate passed muster whether one looked at the original language of the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s precedents. It is now the third possible template for how the Court could decide the case on the merits; two appeals court panels have found the law to be constitutional, while a third has found it unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh’s position has the appeal of leaving the future of health care reform to the elected branches, should they choose to address it, or at least putting off a hot-button Court decision until after the election. But the Supreme Court has waded into politically difficult waters before: Remember Bush v. Gore? The political volatility of this one could argue for dodging the case—or taking it.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as soon as Monday whether to accept one of the various challenges to the health care law. Justices met on Thursday to discuss the issue.

It seems likely that the high court will take the case, but it’s hard to predict exactly when it will hear it—or decide it. Arguments most likely would be in February or March, followed by a decision near the end of the term in June.

Outside of the judges’ chambers, everyone wants the case decided, and now. The Obama administration’s Justice Department skipped an appeal and filed a brief early, urging the Court to decide the case this term. The states and conservative groups opposing the law also want a swift decision on the merits, although they obviously hope for a different outcome. And the health care industry has spoken, too: Health insurers, doctors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among the many groups asking the Court not just for a particular ruling but simply to take a case and clear up uncertainties about whether health care reform will proceed.

However, the clamor for a swift and final ruling on the constitutional merits of the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance doesn’t mean that’s what the Court will produce. As an opinion from an influential conservative judge highlighted last week, the justices also have a legal means for postponing their final ruling until after the law is implemented. The opinion also noted that with a “tweak,” Congress could fix any possible problems with the law.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee and a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, echoed an argument made by a more liberal panel of judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in his dissent to a D.C. Circuit Court ruling upholding the law, saying that the courts simply don’t have standing to take the case right now. Judges on the left and the right have endorsed this analysis, meaning that the Court should take the question seriously, several constitutional advocates and scholars say.

If nothing else, the Court is likely to ask parties to address whether the Court has jurisdiction. That could lead to an awkward outcome, because both the government and the challengers disagree with the argument.

Advocates arguing against the law have described the individual mandate to buy insurance as a sweeping and unprecedented imposition of federal power. In a recent discussion at the Heritage Foundation, David Rivkin Jr. of Baker Hostetler, a lawyer in one of the cases, described the challenges as an excellent test case, where the Court could draw clear lines around what Congress can and cannot do under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

But Kavanaugh’s opinion also highlights how a small legislative change could completely undermine the various challenges to the individual mandate. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to impose taxes. If the drafters of the health care law had structured the payments as a “tax” instead of a “penalty,” then the case would be easy to decide, he said.

“Just a minor tweak to the current statutory language would definitively establish the law’s constitutionality,” Kavanaugh wrote, speculating that the whole debate could be moot by 2015 if Congress were to make the change. On the other side, Congress could certainly eliminate the legal furor if it voted to abolish the individual mandate, or the entire law.

Another highly regarded conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Laurence Silberman, wrote in the majority opinion that the health care law’s individual mandate passed muster whether one looked at the original language of the Constitution or the Supreme Court’s precedents. It is now the third possible template for how the Court could decide the case on the merits; two appeals court panels have found the law to be constitutional, while a third has found it unconstitutional.

Kavanaugh’s position has the appeal of leaving the future of health care reform to the elected branches, should they choose to address it, or at least putting off a hot-button Court decision until after the election. But the Supreme Court has waded into politically difficult waters before: Remember Bush v. Gore? The political volatility of this one could argue for dodging the case—or taking it.