and congress was less nilistic, they understand that there's effect to imposing legal obligations because at least some people will choose to follow the law even if they won't be fined for breaking the law. >> from the mandates being the fact that there will be additional people taking advantage of the requirements to get coverage under medicaid. >> that's the state's -- one of the states' interests in challenging the mandate. my clients are private individuals who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance. and naib as an organization that represents those individuals in its own right. >> what about the jurisdictional question, why is that so important? >> whether the anti-injunction act is jurisdictional? well, the government in this case is affirmatively arguing that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. so every party to the case thinks the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. they are the sole beneficiary of the statute even they don't think it applies. so ordinarily the court would not have to consider the issue at all. the only circumstance in which they would have to consider

and congress was less nilistic than people are suggesting.understand that there is effect in making legal obligations because at least some people will choose to follow the law even if they won't be fined for breaking the law. >> to your clients from the mandate as being the fact that there would be additional people taking advantage, required to get coverage. >> in medicaid. that's the state's -- that's one of the state's interests in challenging the mandate. my clients are private individuals who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, and nfib both as an organization that represents those individuals and in its own right. >> what about the jurisdiction question, why is that so important? >> whether the injunction act is jurisdictional? well, the government in this case is affirmatively arguing that the anti-injunction act doesn't apply. to