Sean Sheffer Interactive Map of Supreme Court Decision Outcomes

The days come closer and closer - what will the Supreme Court decide this month? What will be the reprecussion of these decisions?

Check out this great interactive Supreme Court decision map from the New York Times. Depending on each answer and scenario you input - a different outcome will be achieved. 

Here is a description of the questions in the interactive map: 

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this month on President Obama's 2010 health care law. The court is considering a series of questions to determine whether the law, or parts of it, will survive.

1. Is it too soon to consider this case?

The Anti-Injunction Act says that taxes cannot be challenged in court until they are first levied. The justices will decide if the health law's penalties, which will not be due until 2015, can be considered a tax.

2. Is the individual mandate constitutional?

The mandate requires most people to have health insurance or pay an annual penalty. Opponents of the law say the requirement to buy a product or service is not within the federal government's powers.

3. How much of the law will have to be cut?

Two of the law's major provisions -- health insurers must take all applicants and cannot charge them different rates based on health -- rely on the mandate to help offset costs. Congress did not include an explicit ''severability'' clause in the health law, which is sometimes used to say what parts of a law survive if other parts are found unconstitutional.

  • Mandate only

If the mandate is struck down, it would be up to Congress to retool the law to ensure the remaining rules don't trigger a ''death spiral'' of soaring premiums as all but the sickest flee the market. During oral arguments in March, liberal justices indicated they preferred cutting as little as possible and leaving any necessary changes to Congress.



People who do not want to buy health insurance would not be penalized if they don't. Premiums could be higher in the individual market.


This is a nightmare outcome for insurers, who fear the burden of covering sicker people without a large pool of healthier people to offset the cost.


The law has spurred structural changes for health providers since 2010, and many of those changes are here to stay even if portions of the law are not. Some hospitals have prepared for more patients by hiring doctors and upgrading computer systems. There would be some uncertainty until it becomes clear how Congress may react.


The state insurance exchanges required by the law rely on the mandate to calculate rates and attract a pool of users. States could choose to enact their own laws that require or encourage residents to buy insurance before they need it.

  • Mandate and related provisions

If the mandate and related provisions are cut, the central reforms protecting those with pre-existing conditions would be lost. Remaining provisions in the law would need to be adjusted. The federal government argued for this option if the mandate is struck down. The justices seemed uneasy with too much judicial editing of the law.



Many people with serious pre-existing conditions would still have difficulty obtaining or affording coverage.


This option would address concerns of insurers, who say the market reforms are inextricably linked to the mandate and would not work without it.

  • All of it

If the entire law is struck down, Congress would have a ''clean slate'' to rewrite the law, or do nothing. Patients and the health care industry would face great uncertainty. Some conservative justices indicated during oral arguments that they preferred this option, rather than leaving a hollowed-out law.



Popular consumer provisions, such as free preventive care and extended coverage for young adults, would no longer be guaranteed by law.


Some large insurers have said they will continue to offer some popular coverage changes already in effect.


This would be disruptive for health care providers, since many have begun to carry out changes envisioned in the2010 law.


States that have been investing in their exchanges would have to decide whether to continue.

Next entry