Moscow. And on this show, from the parents of one of The Americans being detained in russia, were live with them in just a moment for an interview youll not want to miss, all of it as President Bidens domestic agenda seems to pick up steam. Infrastructure and voting rights. Whats happened in the world while the eyes are fixed on geneva. And its decision day in the Supreme Court. Its on obamacare, lgbtq rights, and free speech. Any second we get word from the court, were going to break in as it happens. Im Hallie Jackson with Josh Letterman at the white house. Leigh ann caldwell on capitol hill and an msnbc contributor. Good morning to all of you. Josh, let me start with you. The president returns home from overseas. Then the sales job begins. Frankly, theres a pretty long list of unresolved issues here. Reporter what the white house is saying, hallie, is the president achieved what he cement out to do, not some grand detat or where moscow becomes a u. S. Alley, but instead trying to keep the bottom falling out from this relationship which has been spiraling over the last few years and have a more Common Ground so they have a more predictable relationship Going Forward, so the white house touting the fact as deliverable theyre going to return them. Josh, i have to interrupt you. The Obamacare Decision is in. This is the biggest case of the term. It is significant. Im being told in my ear its a 72 decision. Remember, this was looking at the individual mandate. Heres Pete Williams. The Supreme Court took on the case. Whats the decision . For the third time the u. S. Supreme court has spared obamacare from challenges, this time from a group of red states who said the institutional mandate was unconstitutional and could not be upheld as a legitimate taxing authority because congress had later set that tax penalty if you didnt buy that insurance at zero. Today in a 72 decision the Supreme Court said the states who challenged it didnt have the legal standing to bring this case. In other words, theyve thrown the case out without ruling on the underlying issue. They basically say the red states didnt say they were injured enough by the obamacare surviving to be able to bring this challenge into court. 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 this decision, so this is not a decision on the merits. This is simply a decision saying these states didnt have the legal standing to bring this case. So what this does is it means in the future, other states could try again this same legal challenge, and 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 72 decision from the Supreme Court, rejecting this challenge without ruling on the underlying case. Thats whats so interesting here. We have been obviously simulcasting our Pete Williams whos reporting for nbc news and msnbc. This is big news. Were getting it before the term has officially ended. We have a whole team. So as pete has laid out there, this is not a case a decision necessarily on the merits. Put that into Plain English and help people understand the implications of this. Obamacare wins again. As pete was just explaining, this procedurally has to do with how they didnt want to get into the merits of the case, rejecting it on standing being just a full objection. The conservative states were looking for one more way to chip at or attack obamacare. The headline if youre not a lawyer, it means obamacare is the Law Of The Land. This court wants to come together because you have a wide coalition. You have most of the justices coming together. The language began i havent finish the whole case, but some of the language im seeing in there is the court saying the fact that a particular state doesnt like a federal law or doesnt Like Obamacare, thats not enough to get them into court. The bar that the court is setting in this ruling, defending obamacare, upholding it is to say you have to have a real injury as a state. You cant say as a state like texas, hey, i dont like it, let us in, lets relitigate the whole thing. Ari, help us understand this for viewers who are nonlawyers. There are basically three pieces to this case. There was the standing question, whether texas was able to show injury here as youre talking about, there was the question of the individual mandate itself and the constitutionality, and the severability. It sound ts like its the standing issue that has hung up this particular case . Yeah. You have to get through that door number one before you even get to The Other Two things you mentioned. So in most cases i guess, lets take a step back. Its a big deal. Really interesting. In most cases the Supreme Court get this far on, they dont back down on standing usually. They usually say were taking this case this high up, well deal with the merits. Its a little unusual to go back to door number one. Ari, just so i can let norfolks know what were dealing with here, it has been printed out and handed to me. Its lengthy. I know youre reading through it. Pete williams is as well. Melissa murray is with us, former law clerk and now working for judge sotomayor. Lay it out for us again. We know what the decision is. Im going to ask my team to pull up which judge ruled which way. Melissa, take us back to how this case originated in the first place and the path that it has gone on over the last, you know, months and months since it was argued. So, again, this case has been percolating for a while. It really began when john mccain as a senator voted to uphold the individual mandate in obamacare when the republicans tried to feel it in full. When the republicans failed to repeal it in the senate, they then shifted to the courts, and they challenged the individual mandate on the ground that because it had been the penalty had been lowered to zero, it was no longer a tax, and, therefore, obamacare was no longer constitutional. Here again the court has said the plaintiffs who brought this case, the red states, do not have standing to bring this sort of challenge in Federal Court because they lack a Particularized Injury because the mandate had been lowered to zero. I might take issue with petes point. I think we could challenge it, but not necessarily on these grounds. As i read this opinion, a challenge based on the fact that the individual mandate has a penalty of zero and is no longer a tax, it would be hard for any plaintiff Going Forward to have standing based on this decision today. Thats not to say there couldnt be some kind of challenge to the Affordable Care act, but it wouldnt be about whether it was a tax or not and therefore was obviously unconstitutional. I would like your assessment of that as well. I think as you look at some of the statistics, you know, millions of people, their health care is on the line when it comes to what the court was going to decide with the Affordable Care act, and i think the question is does this mean this is put to bed . That questions on the constitutionality are put to bed or its just decided for now and we may see some of those doors open up again down the road . Thats a great question. Id rather answer it in a few hours when ive had a chance to digest the whole case. Thats fair. Thats fair. Thats exactly the right question. Everyone is wondering when the Supreme Court finally affirms obamacare again. Thats the essential holding. People wonder whether were other it. Justice breyer seems to shut the door at least in my reading of the language to the idea you would get back in court anything like this type of challenge that would require what we might call a governmental or theoretical approach. That is to say, not a case where a person says, oh, the way Obamacare Works has injured me, let me show you how. But its state versus federal, which is the history. Weve seen conservative states find any which way to challenge. Looking at one part of the authority opinion here, breyer writes, Cannot Support the indications that support them. Our case speaks to a certain injury of the states threatened Enforcement Today or in the future. Translation, quote, you cant just say because theres a rule from the feds you dont like, youre injured. A lot of this if you want to say what the holding is today, its as i mentioned. Obamacare wins and you can have this kind of structure. If you want to talk with the kind of clash this was, this was somehow really taxing and troublesome for them as basically autonomous states, and the Supreme Court on a Large Coalition is saying, no, it wasnt that bad for you. Youre not really hurt, which means you dont get to challenge the rest of this in court. So i would say, big, big picture, this is a very Strong Holding for obamacare because it certainly makes it hard if not impossible for certain states to get in the door next time on these kind of claims. As of february of last year, nearly 11 Million People had been enrolled in coverage in the Affordable Care act exchanges. We now have that list who decided how in this case. Justices alito and gorsuch who brork with the two. And Justice Breyer is the one who wrote that decision. What if anything, melissa, can you read into that makeup of where the justices fell in this case in. I think one of the things thats important to note here is the Chief Justice was with the majority here. When hes with the majority, he has the prerogative to sign this opinion. He did not keep this important opinion for himself. He gavet to Justice Breyer. That might mean a lot of things. It might mean nothing. That does mean he was comfortable with breyer to take up this particular opinion, and maybe thats a signaling how this court is coming together on some of these issues. Its worth noting, the question of standing, its a jurisdictional standing. Its not a decision on the merits. But standing can be a way the court punts. In the earlier samesex marriage case t court refused to hear the merits of the case, booting it out on standing ground. Its done that in the past. There have been cases where the court has avoided the larger questions by deciding on other cases. Is there a way it could potentially come in court in the next maybe term or two related to this issue where if they are punting a bit, they might not do and that might end up ruling on the merits . I think its hard to think of another case that we get up this high as its structured. And, again, going beyond just the holding that obamacare is safe today, to the professors point, it is interesting to see breyer as a Drem Caratic Appointee writing this. There are many times on the big divisive issues, the court seems bitterly divided. You have Justice Roberts and other justices here going out of their way to say heres something americans thought was politically divisive. Certainly many of the states line up politically on obamacare, but the court isnt. Thats one other observation i would make. I document think theres a way obamacare is going to hit the court really soon, and a decision that may be red or blue for politicians, today finds a much broader coalition. Basically they say, obamacare is fine. You dont have to participate, but the states cant get in and relitigate or overthrow something. E want to bring in Tom Goldstein, a valuable resource through all of this. Tom, about 13 minutes ago we got this huge news out of the Supreme Court. Frankly, i think its safe to say, the biggest case. Its coming down on thursday, rather unexpectedly. Your initial thoughts. Well, i think that the headline that the Supreme Court is just saying that there isnt standing to bring a lawsuit, that is, you know, in this one state, the red states like texas couldnt challenge obamacare, actually understates it. You have a 72 decision. They do it through the back door. They say not only do texas and the states not have standing, but nobody does. This is a challenge about the minimum coverage of obamacare that Everybody Hat to get Health Insurance and now thats unforceable. Congress has taken away the penalty to get that coverage, and the Supreme Court says if you have an unforceable statute, nobody can pursue it. So obamacare wins but in an opinion only lawyers could like. What does it mean for what happens down the road . If the justice went in through the back door to issue this ruling, is there a way, for example, opponents of obamacare, those who had been fighting to get the law torn down, should they feel optimistic this morning . No, i dont think so. I think what the Supreme Court has said here today is that the big challenges to obamacare are done and the country is going to move on from them. Its a massive statute. It has Tens Of Thousands of provisions, and theres lots of statutes how its implemented. On the fundamental question, which has gone to the Supreme Court three times, is obamacare going to be the law s it constitutional, it has been upheld. I think its the end of the road for the challenges. Thats significant, tom. I believe we have dr. Patel with us who worked in the Obama Administration and helped draft the Affordable Care act. Dr. Patel, i have to askure reaction with the big news out of the Supreme Court . Ill be honest. I thought it came early. I thought it waned in terms of the order since Justice Breyer was given the Majority Opinion here. Frankly, bottom line, this is incredible and a chance for the Biden Administration to build and try to take back some of what the country lost when the individual mandate was taken away during the previous attempts to undermine the aca. It puts it to rest. Many of us, myself include, were concerned where Justice Barrett and others would land. Not being a lawyer, i dont think you could have a clearer kind of path that says, this is it, were putting it to rest. People outside and inside are ecstatic, mostly patients who need it. We do not have a reaction from the white house. Again, were 16 minutes into this. I know our white house is working on this, given that this is the morning after President Biden returned from the summit, there may be people trying to sleep in. Have you spoken with any of your colleagues after this has come out . I dont know if your texts are blowing up. I have been. Yes, one, we were pleasantly surprised and shocked it was early. Number two, its an overwhelming relief. You see a lot of people who worked with myself and others in the obama agency. One of the women was a fundamental architect herself, so we have people who absolutely know this Law Inside And Out and know how to leverage regulatory demonstration,able. Yes, weve been texting. Weve been talking about how we might celebrate, but were all pointing out its not enough to celebrate the Supreme Court decision. We have to build back what we lost, including reputation. The Affordable Care act is a plan to build more affordable coverage, better coverage, and that couldnt be more important as were coming out of covid19 and theyre working to pay bills and keep food on the table. Let me reset. We are again activating and we have activated our Breaking News Team on this Significant Development on this thursday morning. The Supreme Court now for the third time upholding the Affordable Care act, this, a 72 rating. You could think of it as blue states versus red states. There were a couple of differences in place or doors that needed to have opened here in order for this case to have proceeded first. The Supreme Court was taking up the issue of standing. Thats kind of door number one. If they had made it through that door, there would be have been a discussion on the constitutionality, door number two. If that door proceed and they decided, no, because theres no tax penalty after the individual mandate after congress repealed that in 2017, can you server the servability question can you server or cut out that piece of the law and move forward. We didnt even get to door 3. As Tom Goldstein is reporting and, ari, id like you to report on this, i want to read what Jus