Professors Hank Greely and David Studdert weigh in on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the federal health care law and the message the decision sends. 

Three years after narrowly surviving a legal challenge, President Obama’s signature health insurance law faced another threat to its survival in much of the nation Thursday before a U.S. Supreme Court led by conservative Republican appointees. The health law prevailed, with something to spare, an apparent signal of its future endurance.

The 6-3 ruling upheld tax-credit subsidies that have helped to make health coverage affordable for most of the more than 15 million Americans newly covered by the law. The case hinged on a brief passage in the 800-page statute enacted in 2010 that said the government must provide subsidies to “an exchange covered by the state.”

…

The ruling is “a decisive statement from the majority that this is an important social reform,” said David Studdert, a professor of law and medicine at Stanford University. “Whether you agree with it or not, Congress intended it to work in a certain way.”

Henry Greely, who teaches health care law at Stanford, agreed Thursday’s ruling was a clear signal from the court. “I think it means the Supreme Court challenges (to the law) have just about run out of gas,” he said.