The court decision adds another element of risk to Barack Obama's 2012 campaign. Obama bets health law on SCOTUS

It could be one of the smartest political moves the Obama administration has made — or a historic mistake that could kill not just the health care reform law but the president’s chances for reelection, too.

By asking the Supreme Court to rule so quickly on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the administration is taking a huge risk that the justices will rule against the law right in the middle of the 2012 race — either striking down the whole law or just slicing out the requirement for nearly all Americans to buy health coverage.


It’s also taking a huge political risk: Supreme Court arguments, and possibly a ruling in summer 2012, could generate headlines and wall-to-wall cable news coverage that would just remind millions of voters about the least popular parts of the health care law. If all voters hear about is the individual mandate — the most hated piece of the law — they may not hear about the parts they do like.

So why is the Justice Department asking for the Supreme Court to review the case now — rather than playing for time before the 11th Circuit, which it could have done, or even just waiting to file with the Supremes just before the November deadline?

The administration seems convinced that proceedings before the court will play out in its favor — with a speedy vindication by the high court and a chance to settle all of the uncertainties so the law can finally move forward.

“We think it important to get a decision from the Supreme Court, with the finality that that brings, to get that decision sooner rather than later,” a senior Justice Department official told reporters on a conference call Wednesday afternoon.

A quick ruling would give more confidence to businesses, the insurance industry and consumers that they’ll know what to expect with the law, the official said — citing recent findings that at least 1 million young adults ages 19 to 26 have already gained coverage through a provision that lets them stay on their parents’ insurance.

And by going to the Supreme Court now, the Obama administration addresses a painful practical reality: A second Obama term is no longer as safe a bet as it was a few months ago. So if the Supreme Court doesn’t take up the health reform law this coming year, it may get the case with a Republican in the White House — and a Department of Justice that doesn’t lift a finger to defend the law in court.

The decision to file the Supreme Court petition Wednesday was clearly coordinated at the highest political levels. Within minutes after the Justice Department alerted reporters that the petition was coming, Stephanie Cutter — a deputy senior adviser to Obama who will take a top role in his reelection campaign at the end of the year — posted a White House blog entry that compared the law’s legal struggles to past challenges to sweeping social reforms, like the Social Security Act and civil rights laws.

And just as other health reform lawsuits failed in other appeals courts, Cutter wrote, the recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the coverage requirement is unconstitutional will fail in the Supreme Court, too.

“Unfortunately the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. We strongly disagree with their decision and today, the Obama administration will ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, so that we can put these challenges to rest and continue moving forward implementing the law to lower the cost of health care and make it more secure for all Americans,” Cutter wrote.

There’s no guarantee that the court will agree to hear the case — or issue a ruling quickly. If the justices want to avoid ruling during an election season, there are ways they can do it; they could deny certiorari, or they could punt, accepting the argument — as one lower court did — that it’s premature to rule on key provisions of the law until they take effect in 2014.

But in a rare moment of agreement, both opponents and supporters of the law say they want the court to rule now.

Earlier Wednesday, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business filed their own petitions asking the court for a speedy ruling for the same reason the administration articulated — to end the uncertainty.

Some Republicans say the administration did the right thing by pushing for a quick resolution. "The marketplace can't handle the uncertainty. So I think outside of the politics, it is a good decision," said Republican strategist John Feehery.

And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who’s sponsoring legislation to allow states to stop implementing the law until the court battles are finished, said she wants a quick ruling that would get rid of the law for good.

“The uncertainty surrounding this law has frozen America’s economy, and the nation’s businesses have waited long enough for some finality. I trust the Supreme Court will take this case as soon as possible,” Hutchison said in a statement Wednesday.

The states and the NFIB want the high court to strike down the entire law, not just the coverage mandate. But even if it’s just the mandate that falls, the change could create havoc with the rest of the law. That’s because the unpopular mandate is closely tied to other key provisions of the law — not the entire law, but important pieces of it — in ways that much of the public is still learning.

Starting in 2014, for example, insurance companies won’t be able to turn down people or charge them higher premiums because of health problems. That’s the same year the coverage mandate kicks in. But once people in poor health can automatically get coverage, the only way everyone else’s premiums can stay stable is if healthy people are also paying premiums to cover the risky ones.

If those healthy people stay out of the insurance pools — because there’s no mandate anymore — the premiums could shoot higher for everyone else. And if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, but not the other insurance rules, Congress might have to step in to rewrite those parts of the law to prevent chaos.

And given how polarized Congress is on the law right now — with Republicans solidly against it and promising to repeal it — the chances are slim to none that lawmakers would have any interest in “repairing” it.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:38 p.m. on September 28, 2011.