How to use the court system

More than 1,000 lawyers, judges and judges are preparing to take part in a special session of the US Supreme Court to argue on behalf of the plaintiffs in a case that could determine whether a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional.

The case is about whether the law’s “mandatory arbitration clause” applies to arbitration, which is an alternative to traditional arbitration where parties seek a payment or other payment in return for resolving disputes.

The law’s provision, known as “mandate arbitration”, requires firms to provide arbitration for claims arising under the ACA, which President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal and replace.

The US Supreme court ruled in March that arbitration provisions were constitutional and should not be struck down.

The Supreme Court’s majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, is expected to rule this week on whether arbitration clauses should be struck.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is expected on Friday to vote in favor of upholding the ACA’s arbitration provisions, is one of the few who believes arbitration is constitutional and that it is in the public interest to have arbitration clauses.

In February, Justice Sotomaya agreed with a lower court ruling that a mandatory arbitration clause in the ACA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In response, the Justice Department sued the state of California, arguing that it could not enforce its arbitration clause because it does not have the authority to enforce it.

In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the court said that the arbitration clause “appears to provide the state with a broad and discretionary power to regulate the commercial conduct of third parties and imposes on them substantial costs”.

It also said that California could not “prohibit the state from adopting a regulation, or otherwise prevent the enforcement of the regulation”.

The case centres on an arbitration clause that California enacted in 2007 that requires insurers to provide “adverse actions” for consumers if they decide to join arbitration proceedings.

The arbitration clause was one of several that the state implemented under the Affordable Health Care Act, which the Justice department says is meant to prevent “unfair” and “unnecessary” consumer disputes and to ensure consumers have access to “free and fair” insurance.

The court, however, found that California did not have authority to implement the arbitration clauses, which it said were “legally enforceable in a dispute arising under or in connection with the ACA”.

The Supreme court has long been sceptical about arbitration clauses and has often struck down similar provisions of state and federal law, including the Affordable Housing Act.