Paul Clement: lawyer for the states emerges still hungry for healthcare fight

Like a boxer looking for an extra punch as his opponent heads towards the canvas, Paul Clement emerged from the supreme court still hungry for the fight. Six hours spent beating down President Obama's healthcare reforms just "wasn't enough", the lawyer is said to have told reporters as the nine justices began the count behind closed doors. It may be premature to rule an outright knock-out of the White House plans, but during the three-day session Clement, representing 26 states against the act, emerged as the legal pugilist of note. The encounter has further enhanced the reputation of the 45-year-old conservative courtroom specialist. Here's a list of his highlights from the case, and a trawl though his earlier legal battles. Paul Clement v Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act You can't create commerce simply to regulate it Clement suggested that the White House's use of the catch-all commerce clause – which allows federal government to regulate business across state lines – was an over-grab too far. He told the supreme court: "The commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commerce. It does not give Congress the far greater power to compel people to enter commerce, to create commerce essentially in the first place. "[Congress] justified the mandate as a regulation of the economic decision to forgo the purchase of health insurance. That is a theory without any limiting principle." No such thing as a free expansion of Medicare Arguing that individual states were being coerced into expanding their Medicare provision by being told they would lose funding if they opted out, Clement was challenged by Justice Kagan. Asked if it would be such a bad deal, even if 100% of funding comes from Washington, Clement answered "yes". Likening it to a $10m job offer, Justice Kagan pondered: "Wow. I'm offering you $10m a year to come and work for me and you are saying this is anything but a great choice?" Clement responded: "Sure, if I told you actually it came from my own bank account. And that is what's really going on here in part." But what about the other 24 states, Mr Clement? Justice Ginsburg raised concern that that the opposition to Medicare expansion would impact the states that do want greater provisions. "That shouldn't be a terrible concern," Clement said, noting that the court could pass a statute that makes expansion voluntary. "What's telling here, though, is 26 states who think that this is a bad deal for them, actually are also saying that they have no choice but to take this because they can't afford to have their entire participation in this 45-year-old program wiped out," he added. One out, all out? Clement argued forcefully that if the court ruled against people having to buy insurance, then the justices must strike out the act as a whole. He told them: "If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the act cannot stand… "… If you do not have the individual mandate to force people into the market, then community rating and guaranteed-issue will cause the costs of premiums to skyrocket." The "Dem Bones" argument Channelling the old spiritual's refrain , Clement laid out how the "unconstitutional" parts of the act are interconnected with all other aspects. They are "textually interconnected to the changes, which are then connected to the tax credits, which are also connected to the employer mandates, which is also connected to some of the revenue offsets, which is also connected to Medicaid…" Taken to its logical conclusion, all that would be left is a "hollow shell" of an act, of no use to anyone. Clement's past courtroom battles Paul Clement v gay marriage House Republicans recruited Clement's then law firm King & Spalding to represent them in arguing for the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars same-sex unions. But the firm withdrew its services amid a backlash from gay and lesbian groups. Clement, who was to be lead attorney for King & Spalding, stepped down from the firm to continue working on the case. In his resignation letter, Mr Clements wrote of his "firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters". "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do," he added. Paul Clement v illegal immigration The lawyer is set for another trip to the supreme court during its current sitting to argue the case for Arizona's controversial immigration law. The legislation allows police officers to stop, detain and arrest anyone arousing "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant. Critics say the law is tantamount to racial profiling. A day before it was due to go into effect, federal judges struck out the law's most controversial provisions. In front of the nine justices, Clement is due to argue for them to be reinstated. Paul Clement v terror suspects As solicitor general, Clement was President George W Bush's go-to guy to defend the administration's so-called war on terror in US courtrooms. Although winning a number of cases defending the White House's policy on the detention of suspects, it also gave way to one of his most unfortunate moments as a lawyer. In 2004, under questioning in the supreme court he asserted that the Bush administration did not sanction torture. Just a day later, revelations about the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib began to surface in the papers. "It's the worst thing that can happen to you as a lawyer," he is reported to have said about the incident. Paul Clement v partial-birth abortion Clement's reputation as a legal defender of conservative positions was enhanced further by his oral arguments in favour of an act banning a procedure used to terminate pregnancies in the second trimester, known to conservatives as "partial-birth abortion". The legislation was signed into law in 2003. Its constitutionality upheld in 2007 in the supreme court in a 5-4 position, following oral arguments by Clement. Paul Clement v the NBA In a diversion from the type of cases he usually takes on, Clement was one of the lawyers representing the National Basketball Association in last year's labour dispute with players. The wrangling, over the division of profits and a salary cap on players, led to a lockout that postponed the start of the current season. Both sides eventually reached an agreement, but the delays resulted in a curtailed season, with the originally planned 82-game season reduced to just 66.