This is an excerpt from Executive Insight Briefing, produced every Thursday by the National Journal’s Daily Briefings Team.

The Supreme Court finished three days of oral arguments on the 2010 health care law on Wednesday, leaving pundits and politicians alike puzzling over what the outcome might be.

Many observers saw the arguments as a blow to the law; the government’s defense laywer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, faced tough questions from the Justices and didn’t always present a perfectly smooth front. But others point out that oral arguments often have little persuasive effect on the justices’ decisions.

The first day of arguments focused on the part of the law that would require most Americans to buy health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate.” The attorney representing the parties challenging the law argued that the mandate is an overreach of congressional power. Verrilli argued that the government has the power to regulate commerce under the Constitution. The Justices seemed split on this issue, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, likely to be the deciding factor.

If the individual mandate is struck down, however, the justices must decide whether the rest of the law can stand. Here, they again appeared to be split, with liberal justices arguing in favor of “severability,” allowing portions of the law to be struck without eliminating the law altogether, and conservative justices seeming to argue that the whole law must fall.

The final arguments surrounded the law's pressure on states to expand their Medicare programs or risk a suspension of federal funds. This may be the provision with the most potential to shape constitutional law, because there is very little precedent.

The justices will take a preliminary, private vote this Friday and then draft opinions, with a ruling expected by late June. If the court finds the law unconstitutional in its entirety, some pundits suggest health care could become a rallying cry for Democrats, boosting Obama’s chances of reelection, but the White House said on Thursday that it has no contingency plan for health care in case of such an outcome.

Republicans haven’t suggested an alternate plan, either, and a gridlocked Congress makes it difficult to see how lawmakers could make piecemeal changes to the law. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would likely work to keep some of the popular provisions – including those that expand coverage to young adults – that have already been enacted.

Read the complete March 29, 2012, edition of Executive Insight Briefing.