According to a Reuters report congressional Republicans are developing legislation in the event that the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act in June. The approach would be incremental, likely employing some parts of the current health reform law that are popular. A general sketch of the plan suggests that the emphasis will be placed on cost control and continuity of coverage for those in employer sponsored plans. Right now, few other details are available.

In the wake of oral arguments at the Supreme Court and observers' belief that the health reform law may be struck down, reporters questioned the Secretary of the overseeing executive branch whether it had an alternative plan. Sebelius stuck to the Administration's party line, claiming confidence that the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate provision will be upheld.

With everything on the line, both sides gave their closing arguments for and against the law on Wednesday. Most notably, the justices questioned the parties regarding the expansion of Medicaid, projected to result in 16 million new insured Americans. With billions of new federal dollars being pumped into state programs to covered the newly eligibly at 133% of the federal poverty level, the states are claiming that this part of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutionally coerces them to expand a program against their prerogative.

Day two of the Supreme Court's review of the Affordable Care Act led to heated confrontation between the High Court and the Solicitor General representing the federal government. Questioning the validity of the government's claims in regards to the Constitution's Commerce Clause, Justice Alito asked how forcing individuals to buy insurance would differ from broccoli.

The Court listened to arguments on the 19th century Anti-Injunction Act, which bars a lawsuit from being brought forth until the tax has been actually levied. Essentially, the penalty imposed as part of the individual mandate on those who eschew health insurance will not go into effect until 2014, meaning a lawsuit could not be ruled on until 2015. Interestingly, the federal government, defending the individual mandate, does not ascribe to the notion of the penalty as a tax, therefore nixing a delay in the case.

Max Stier

He has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Mr. Stier clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Mr. Stier served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice.