Don't Remove I was the editor who brought in the article from The Hill, so hopefully I can partially address why it could be relevant. At the time, the subsection was massive, containing many paragraphs of outdated predictions on the fate of the bill. I added in the article hoping to bring the subsection up to date, and the rest of the subsection was later deleted (by another editor). That being said, I think the article is valuable in that (1) it shows how lower court rulings have brought about a change in expert forecasts on the law, which is relevant to the law's history, and (2), that a 5-4 decision is likely, indicating the extent of the debate regarding the law's constitutionality. For instance, if experts predicted that a decision by the supreme court on a given law would be unanimous, the constitutionality of the law is rather clear, and demonstrating a relative lack of debate. However, the predicted 5-4 ruling shows that to many, whether or not PPACA is constitutional is rather nebulous.

As far as to what article this subsection belongs in, I agree that it could be useful in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, however, it should also remain in this article in some form or fashion as it is relevant to A) the debate regarding the subject's constitutionality and B) the possible fate of the subject. 

As mentioned above, I feel the subsection serves a purpose, and would be happy to see it discuss multiple perspectives on the subject, using multiple sources, so as to address any NPOV concerns.