Court's review of Medicaid expansion could affect other federal programs

The New York Times: Implications Are Far-Reaching in States' Challenge of Federal Health Care Law
A major issue in the Supreme Court battle over the new health care law is whether Congress can force states to make a huge expansion of Medicaid, to add millions of low-income people to the rolls. States say the federal law is unconstitutionally coercive because all their Medicaid money would be at risk if they flout the new requirement. The states argument has implications that go far beyond health care (Pear, 3/23).

In other coverage Saturday of the upcoming court case and the health law -

The New York Times: A Lawyer Who Can Simplify the Complex Draws a Big One: Obama's Health Overhaul
If history is any guide, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. will hole up in a hotel close to the Supreme Court building, eat only salmon for dinner because it is said to help brain function, and give his undivided attention to the final preparations for what promises to be the biggest case of his life. Less than a year after becoming solicitor general, Mr. Verrilli will go before the Supreme Court for three days next week to defend the Obama administration's health care overhaul law, one of the president's signature and most controversial accomplishments (Urbina, 3/24). 

The Wall Street Journal: Health-Law Foes' Rocky Road To High Court
If the lawsuit contesting President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul is to succeed, it will have to overcome setbacks that left the challengers with unfavorable lower-court rulings and a less-than-ideal plaintiff. Some participants in the challenge say the setbacks could have been minimized with a more focused strategy that was proposed early on by some prominent conservative lawyers but never fully adopted, while others say any past stumbles will ultimately have little significance (Bravin, 3/23).