>> Announcer: THIS IS AN NBC
NEWS SPECIAL REPORT.
HERES SAVANNAH GUTHRIE.
>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY, IM
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE IN NEW YORK AND
WE HAVE A DECISION JUST BREAKING
FROM THE SUPREME COURT ON A
CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE, THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AND I WANT TO GET RIGHT TO NBCS
PETE WILLIAMS WHO IS OUTSIDE THE
COURT THIS MORNING.
THIS WAS THE CHALLENGE BROUGHT
ORIGINALLY BY STATES OPPOSED TO
OBAMACARE.
THE SUPREME COURT TOOK ON THE
CASE.
ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE RIGHT AFTER
THE ELECTION.
WHATS THE DECISION.
>>> THE THIRD TIGHT TIME THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPARED
OBAMACARE FROM CHALLENGES FROM A
GROUP OF RED STATES WHO SAID THE
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND COULD NOT
BE UPHELD AS A LEGITIMATE USE OF
TAXING AUTHORITY BECAUSE
CONGRESS LATER SET THAT TAX
PENALTY IF YOU DIDNT BUY
INSURANCE AT ZERO.
BUT TODAY IN A 7-2 DECISION THE
SUPREME COURT SIMPLY SAYS THAT
THE STATES WHO CHALLENGED IT
DIDNT HAVE THE LEGAL STANDING
TO BRING THIS CASE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE THROWN
THE CASE OUT WITHOUT RULING ON
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE.
THEY BASICALLY SAY THAT THE RED
STATES DIDNT DEMONSTRATE THAT
THEY WERE INJURED ENOUGH BY THE
OBAMACARE SURVIVING TO BE ABLE
TO BRING THIS CHALLENGE INTO
COURT.
NOW THE SUPREME COURT IN RECENT
YEARS HAS BEEN VERY PICKY ABOUT
GROUPS THAT CAN COME INTO COURT.
WHATS KNOWN FOR THE LAWYERS AS
LEGAL STANDING.
AND THATS THE BASIS OF IN
DECISION.
SO THIS IS NOT A DECISION ON THE
MERITS.
S IN SIMPLY A DECISION SAYING
THESE STATES DIDNT HAVE THE
LEGAL STANDING TO BRING THIS
CASE.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT MEANS IN
THE FUTURE OTHER STATES COULD
TRY AGAIN THE SAME LEGAL
CHALLENGE.
IF THEY CAN FIND ENOUGH WAYS TO
GET PEOPLE TOGETHER AND COBBLE
UP ANOTHER CASE, OBAMACARE COULD
FACE YET ANOTHER CHALLENGE.
BUT FOR NOW OBAMACARE SURVIVES
AGAIN.
A 7-2 DECISION FROM THE SUPREME
COURT RB REGGING THIS CHALLENGE
WITHOUT RULING ON THE UNDERLYING
CASE.
>> YEAH, THATS WHATS SO
INTERESTING HERE, PETE.
THEY ABSOLUTELY SIDE-STEPPED THE
ISSUE THAT A LOT OF THE ORAL
ARGUMENT FOCUSED ON, WHETHER THE
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE REQUIRING THE
PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE, WHETHER
THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WESTERLY IT WAS SAVED BACK IN
2012 BECAUSE IT WAS FRAMED AS A
TAX.
THEY DIDNT REACH ANY OF THOSE
ISSUES.
IM LOOKING AT THE BREAKDOWN OF
THE JUSTICES, 7-2 IT ISNT SPLIT
DOWN IDEOLOGICAL LINES.
ALITO AND GORSUCH WERE
DISSENTERS.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE HELD THE LAW
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
BUT ANY DID NOT CARRY THE DAY.
THEY WERE ONLY ABLE TO GET TUP
OF THE SIX CONSERVATIVES TO
AGREE WITH THEM.
>> SO ITS INTERESTING, PETE,
BECAUSE THE -- THE CHALLENGERS
TO OBAMACARE ACTUALLY WON IN THE
COURTS BELOW.
THEY WON AT THE TRIAL COURT.
AND THAT DECISION THROWING OUT
OBAMACARE WAS AFFIRMED AT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
THAT DECISION WAS STAYED WHILE
THE SUPREME COURT TOOK ON THIS
CASE.
THE PRACTICAL EFFECT MAY NOT BE
FELT.
BUT ITS INTERESTING BECAUSE
THEY WON IN THE LOWER COURTS.
AND NOW THE SUPREME COURT HAS
SAID NO,O WAY, YOU HAD NO
BUSINESS BEING IN COURT IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
>> AS A LEGAL MATTER THE LOWER
COURT DECISIONS ARE WIPED OFF
THE EFFECTS, HAVE NO LEGAL
EFFECT WHAT SO FAR.
THATS BEEN THE STORY WITH THE
LAST TWO CHALLENGES TO
OBAMACARE.
IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT EACH TIME
DEFENDING IT.
AND AGAINST THE CHALLENGERS.
NOW, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF CASES
THE SUPREME COURT DID SAY THE
CHALLENGERS COULD BRING THEIR
CASES.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE
SUPREME COURT ON AN OBAMACARE
DECISION REFUSED TO GET INTO THE
MERITS.
AS I SAY LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN.
FRANKLY, THIS WAS THE SECOND
BEST HOPE OF DEFENDERS OF
OBAMACARE.
THEIR FIRST HOPE WAS THE COURT
WOULD EITHER SAY, LOOK, YOU
KNOW, EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUAL
MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL YOU
CAN SAW THAT OUT AND LEAVE THE
REST OF THE LAW INTACT WITH THE
COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS AND SO
FORTH.
SO THEIR SECOND BEST HOPE WAS A
DECISION LIKE THIS, BECAUSE IT