This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioners argue that the case challenges the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, focusing on whether the expansion is coercive.
The expansion could cost about $3.3 trillion over the next ten years.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioners, the petitioners framed two related questions: (1) whether the Medicaid expansion is coercive, and (2) whether that coercion matters.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Florida)
According to Mr. Clement, the petitioners argue that the expansion is coercive because of its sheer size, the fact that it is tied to a non‑voluntary individual mandate, and the leverage it gives the federal government over the states.
States (Respondent)
The States contend that the Medicaid expansion represents an impermissibly coercive exercise of federal power.
According to States, they also argue that the sheer size of the program makes it unworkable, regardless of whether the expansion is modest or substantial.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place at 1:00 p.m.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4f46ec7df7a8352ff0e8-r1-b758ae1dd4ceaa30.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.