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I can partially address why it could be relevant At the time the subsection was massive containing many paragraphs of outdated predictions on the fate of the bill I added in the article hoping to bring the subsection up to date and the rest of the subsection was later deleted by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