Â鶹ŮÓÅ

The Supreme Court has rejected another challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The justices on Tuesday left in place lower court rulings that dismissed a lawsuit against the national health care law. The suit argues that the law violates the provision of the Constitution that requires tax-raising bills to originate in the House of Representatives. (1/19)

The justices turned down a challenge from conservatives that contended Congress violated the Constitution when it approved the law in 2010 by sending a bill that raised revenue through the Senate before the House. The Constitution says revenue-raising bills must originate in the House. A federal appeals court had turned down the petition because, a panel of judges said, the law was predominately a bill to improve health insurance coverage, not a revenue-raising bill. (Wolf, 1/19)

In declining to hear that contention, the high court all but ensured that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, will remain intact through the November election. The rebuff leaves health care as one of the core issues in the presidential and congressional campaigns. (Stohr, 1/19)

The U.S. Supreme Court has snubbed yet another Obamacare case. The justices on Tuesday declined to take up the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act -- a quirky lawsuit that sought to invalidate the law on the grounds that it violates the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Farias, 1/19)

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a case challenging mandatory union dues in California will deal only with government employees and probably won't have an immediate impact on health care either nationally or in California. But if the court removes the requirement for public employees to pay "fair share service fees," which are tantamount to membership dues, the long-term ramifications could significantly change the health care delivery system, experts predict. (Lauer, 1/19)

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the manufacturer of Children's Motrin over a $63 million judgment awarded to a family whose daughter developed a life-threatening disease after taking the medicine. The justices on Tuesday let stand a lower court ruling that said Johnson & Johnson should pay the judgment awarded to the family of Samantha Reckis. (1/19)