The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development, which came unexpectedly fast, makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Related in Opinion

Room for Debate: Is the Health Care Law Unconstitutional?

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTimesNational for breaking news and headlines.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »

• Read All Comments (151) »

The Justice Department said the justices should hear its appeal of a decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that struck down the centerpiece of the law by a 2-to-1 vote.

“The department has consistently and successfully defended this law in several courts of appeals, and only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “We believe the question is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court.

“Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation, such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed,” the statement continued. “We believe the challenges to the Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.”

On Monday, the administration announced that it would not seek review from the full 11th Circuit. Its Supreme Court petition was not due until November.

The administration did not explain why it did not take routine litigation steps that might have slowed the progress of the challenges enough to avoid a decision in the current Supreme Court term. It did say in its brief that the 11th Circuit’s decision striking down the central piece of a comprehensive regulatory scheme created “a matter of grave national importance.”

The political calculus is complicated. A decision striking down President Obama’s signature legislative achievement only months before the election would doubtless be a blow. But a decision from a court divided along ideological lines could further energize voters already critical of last year’s 5-to-4 campaign finance decision, Citizens United.

A decision upholding the law might also both help and hurt Mr. Obama’s chances. It would represent vindication, but it could also spur some voters to redouble their efforts to elect candidates committed to repealing it.

The three federal courts of appeal that have issued decisions on the law so far have all reached different conclusions, with one upholding it, a second — the 11th Circuit— striking it down in part, and a third saying that threshold legal issues barred an immediate ruling. A fourth challenge to the law was heard last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The views of the appeals court judges have not uniformly tracked the presumed views of the presidents who appointed them. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, appointed by President George W. Bush, joined the majority in a 2-to-1 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, which upheld the law. Judge Frank M. Hull of the 11th Circuit was appointed by President Bill Clinton and was an author of its majority opinion.

Sen. Claire McCaskill may have been one of President Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters in 2008, but with a tough reelection battle looming, the Missouri Democrat is trying to recast herself as the moderate she was in 2006 — a prosecutor-turned-politician who prevailed in a red state.

In the last month alone, McCaskill has signed onto a budget bill with a half-dozen Republicans, heralded a two-year ban on earmarks that other Democrats were reluctant to embrace and said she’d consider changing the individual mandate requirement in the health care law that passed last year. She even challenged the president on the night of the State of the Union, saying his proposed five-year discretionary spending freeze does not go far enough because it didn’t include military cuts.

McCaskill, whose approval rating hovers in the low 40s, isn’t the only endangered lawmaker sure to shuffle her way to the middle this year and attempt to connect with voters back home. With 23 Democratic senators up for reelection in 2012, McCaskill — keenly aware of how powerful the tea party’s anti-spending rhetoric was in the midterm elections — plans to tout her moderate side, focus on Missouri rather than national issues and distance herself from Obama, which could serve as a tempting blueprint for other vulnerable members of her party.

“This is not about me. This is about the people at home,” McCaskill told POLITICO. “Whether I’m here or not, this isn’t my seat. It belongs to the people of Missouri, so it seems to me, I ought to focus on them and not on myself, and that’s kind of what led me to this place.”

The constant claims of her apolitical motives inside the Capitol make for good politics on the outside, though not everyone thinks voters will buy her recent shift. McCaskill’s ability to distance herself from a president she stood by for years and, instead, reinforce her centrist persona will be a true test of her political dexterity.

The entire piece:: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49128.html#ixzz1DT3q10bn