Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate: Chief Justice Roberts says mandate may be upheld as within Congress’ taxing power.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts


LIVE BLOG: Supreme Court decisions on the Affordable Care Act

Obama will learn how the Supreme Court rules on his healthcare law from watching the news — and SCOTUSblog! — and won’t get any advance word on the opinion, the White House says.

Asked where Obama will be when the highly anticipated decision is announced on Thursday morning, White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “In my office.”

"We turn on televisions and radios and computers and watch SCOTUSblog," Carney told reporters.

"I think anybody who covers the Supreme Court knows that it’s pretty air-tight, and it is perhaps anachronistic, or not, but that’s a fact. And so we all will await the decision and learn of it at the same time that you do," he said.

READ MORE: Obama to learn Supreme Court health verdict from news

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Jose Padilla, who said he had been tortured at a military jail in South Carolina and who sought to hold former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials accountable.

The justices let stand an appeals court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit by Padilla on the grounds his allegations lacked merit. The appeals court said he had no right to sue for the alleged constitutional violations and the judiciary could not review such sensitive military decisions.

In the lawsuit Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and a Muslim convert turned al Qaeda recruit who had been convicted on terrorism charges, sought a declaration that his designation as an enemy combatant, his military detention and his treatment in custody were unconstitutional. He had been held in the military prison from June 2002 until January 2006.

READ MORE: Supreme Court rejects Padilla torture lawsuit appeal

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens leveled new criticism against the court’s landmark 2010 ruling on campaign financing, saying it had allowed corporations to ramp up spending and non-voters to influence the outcome of elections.

Stevens, who dissented from the “Citizens United” ruling, said it had increased the importance of cash in contested elections, opened the floodgates for foreign campaign spending and put corporations or other out-of-state speakers ahead of voters interested in local issues.

"A rule that opens the floodgates for foreign campaign expenditures will increase the relative importance of out-of-state speakers and minimize the impact of voters’ speech that addresses purely local problems," Stevens said.

READ MORE: Retired justice says campaign finance ruling made cash king

Supreme Court to hear government eavesdropping appeal

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an Obama administration appeal arguing that attorneys, journalists and human rights groups have no right to sue over a law making it easier for intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign communications.

The justices said they would review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the plaintiffs have the legal right to proceed with their challenge to a 2008 amendment to the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The section at issue allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on overseas communications, including phone calls and e-mails, more widely and with less judicial oversight than in the past.

The change meant the U.S. government does not have to submit to a special judge an individualized application to monitor a non-American overseas. Instead, the U.S. attorney general and the director of national intelligence can apply for mass surveillance authorization from the judge.