This past Monday, the US Supreme Court turned down their first chance to review and rule on the Health Care Reform Bill, specifically the mandate that requires all citizens to have health insurance. Their refusal was more based on timing than any lack of interest—the mandate in question will not be put into effect until 2014, thus there really is no case to be tried just yet.

The highly controversial nature of the bill practically guarantees that it will be discussed in the Supreme Court once its provisions go into effect. The requirement for health insurance seems like a breach of freedom to many and has inspired many bold moves, from protests and fierce anti-Democrat sentiment to this most recent risky push to move a federal district case with little standing directly to the Supreme Court. The Court’s rejection of the case is not shocking, nor is it indicative of any future decisions they may make regarding hearing another case relating to the matter. Rather, the issues lies in the fact that no Health Care Reform case has even made it through federal appellate court—jumping directly to the Supreme Court is unheard of, and deeply unlikely, considering the court’s preference for holding onto old, long-held traditions and procedures.

Most interesting, however, is the fact that Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan participated in the decision to pass on the case. Both judges have had their impartiality drawn into question, Thomas because of his wife’s active participation in protesting the bill and Kagan because of her role as solicitor general in the Obama administration prior to being named a Supreme Court Justice. If both participated in rejecting this case, it can be assumed that both will participate in determining any future rulings on a similar case. One Justice is presumably biased against the bill, while the other for it—this could create an interesting outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike.

As cases regarding the Health Care Reform bill make their way through lower courts, it is important to keep track of what the decisions are and who is making them in order to be able to predict when the issue will make it into the Supreme Court and be ruled on, once and for all.