Even for those providers who are confident that what they're doing is within the letter of the law, they face the specter of potentially ruinous litigation. They can't stop it. They can't avoid it. They can't pre-empt it.

Steve Vladeck

These cases had been closely watched by everyone with financial interests in Puerto Rico because of the potential implications of a ruling that the oversight board Congress created in response to the financial crisis was unconstitutionally created -- and the massive uncertainty such a decision could have caused for all manner of contracts, investments, and debts, by upholding the board's composition, the Supreme Court today has taken the air out of challenges to the board -- such that its work can proceed apace.

Once again, The Supreme Court has thrown out federal criminal convictions of public officials who, by their own admission, abused their power for corrupt and illegitimate purposes, the harder question is whether Congress will respond to rulings like this one by expanding the scope of these laws, or whether we're going to end up with a world in which criminal liability for such nefarious conduct depends upon the color of one's collar.

This is now the 24th time that the Trump administration has asked The Court to put a lower court decision on hold in less than three years compared to a total of eight such requests during the 16 years of the George W. Bush and Obama administration's combined, as in this case, the justices have often agreed to these requests even when the lower court ruling, as in the most recent case, had only a local impact.

For California, and I think millions of Americans, it is indispensable to get clarity and certainty, and the best way to get certainty is to go to Supreme Court.

Let's get finality, americans don't need to be jerked around when it comes to their health care.

Because the Court of Appeals did not reach the larger question of whether Affordable Care Act must now fall, and instead remanded that to the district court, Supreme Court will face far less pressure to take Affordable Care Act now -- versus waiting until Affordable Care Act comes back after that remand, thus, among other things, today's ruling may allow the justices to dodge -- if they want to, anyway.

Although this case is abortion-related, the plaintiffs' challenge was that the law violated the free speech rights of the doctors, as opposed to the abortion rights of the patients, in that regard, although many find the Kentucky law offensive, it doesn't implicate the same fundamental questions about the continuing scope of the right to choose that the justices identified in Roe as other cases already on the court's docket this term and coming down the pipeline.