The Supreme Court is set to take up several cases in 2016 that could have big ramifications for abortion, Obamacare and even the insurance industry.
Here is a look at the biggest cases to be decided next year:
Abortion
The court decided earlier this year to take up the biggest abortion case in years.
The case, Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, centers on a 2013 Texas law that is one of the strictest in the nation. The law forces abortion clinics to meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers and requires doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. A key question before the court is whether the restrictions are far-reaching obstacles for women who want to have an abortion.
The case also will attempt to decipher the boundaries of a 1992 compromise in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The ruling in that case found that any restriction on abortion must not be an “undue burden,” meaning a state law cannot create substantial obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion.
The court could scrap that compromise altogether or set up a new standard.
The stakes are high as other states, such as Oklahoma and Alabama, have tried similar laws but were blocked by lower courts. Oral arguments for the case are set for March, and a decision is expected when the court’s term ends in June.
Obamacare
Unlike in 2015, the justices aren’t going to hear a case that could potentially dismantle the healthcare law. But that doesn’t mean the law won’t be on the docket.
The court agreed to hear the case Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, which centers on the law’s birth control mandate.
Birth control is one of the preventive services that insurers must cover under Obamacare. But religious nonprofits such as universities and charities said providing birth control violates their religious beliefs.
The court ruled in 2014 that closely held private companies can object to the mandate. So a compromise was reached in which employees get their birth control but insurers pay for it instead of the company.
In the latest court case, the nun-run charity says the compromise isn’t enough. They want an exemption that would keep workers from getting birth control at all under the employer’s health plan.
If the court kills the compromise, it wouldn’t derail the law itself. However, other cases winding through the federal court system would.
One such case is a lawsuit from the House that says Obamacare’s subsidies weren’t properly approved. A judge ruled that the lawsuit could go forward.
And the court could add a wild card to its current term: a lawsuit from an individual protesting the law’s individual mandate for buying health insurance. That lawsuit, brought by an artist and small business owner named Matt Sissel, was presented for consideration in November. The lawsuit contends that the individual mandate violates the origination clause, which says that any bill that raises revenue must originate in the House.
The mandate went into effect in 2014, and next year’s penalty increases to $695 for not having coverage. The Obama administration’s reply, released Wednesday, cites earlier decisions by lower courts that found Obamacare was not a bill for raising revenue because any revenue the mandate creates is incidental to its primary purpose, which is getting people to sign up for healthcare coverage.
The court has not decided whether to hear the case this term.
Health Insurance
Earlier this month, the court heard oral arguments in the case Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., which could have big implications for the regulation of healthcare. The case focuses on a Vermont law that requires insurers to provide healthcare claims data for a massive database.
Liberty Mutual said the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1973, or ERISA, pre-empts state laws and that the company shouldn’t have to turn over the data. The law was created to provide minimum standards for most voluntarily created pension and healthcare plans in private industry, according to the Department of Labor.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that ERISA preempted the requirement to collect information. Vermont petitioned the court to reverse the lower court’s decision.
“Many states, including Vermont, rely on health care databases for accurate, complete information to support, inform and test health care policies,” the state’s complaint said. “The Second Circuit’s unjustified expansion of ERISA preemption in this case threatens these important tools.”
A decision is expected in June.
