The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will use an unprecedented week's worth of argument time in late March to decide the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul before the 2012 presidential elections.

The high court scheduled arguments for March 26th, 27th and 28th over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which aims to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans. The arguments fill the entire court calendar that week with nothing but debate over Obama's signature domestic health care achievement.

With the March dates set, it means a final decision on the massive health care overhaul will likely come before Independence Day in the middle of Obama's re-election campaign. The new law has been vigorously opposed by all of Obama's prospective GOP opponents. Republicans have branded the law unconstitutional since before Obama signed it in a March 2010 ceremony.

In an extraordinary move, the justices are hearing more than five hours of arguments over the health care overhaul. In the modern era, the last time the court increased that time anywhere near this much was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul. That case consumed four hours of argument.

The Supreme Court will start the week of arguments that Monday with one hour on whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not participating in the overhaul.

Federal law generally prohibits challenges to taxes until they are paid. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled earlier this year that the penalty for not purchasing insurance will not be paid before federal income tax returns are due in April 2015, therefore it is too early for a court ruling.

Conservative interest groups and Republican lawmakers want Justice Elena Kagan off the health care case. Liberals and Democrats in Congress say it's Justice Clarence Thomas who should sit it out.

Neither justice is budging — the right decision, according to many ethicists and legal experts.

None of the parties in the case has asked the justices to excuse themselves. But underlying the calls on both sides is their belief that the conservative Thomas is a sure vote to strike down President Barack Obama's health care law and that the liberal Kagan is certain to uphold the main domestic achievement of the man who appointed her.

The stakes are high in the court's election-year review of a law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Both sides have engaged in broad legal and political maneuvering for the most favorable conditions surrounding the court's consideration of the case.

Taking away just one vote potentially could tip the outcome on the nine-justice court.

Republican lawmakers recently have stepped up their effort against Kagan, complaining that the Justice Department has not fully revealed Kagan's involvement in planning the response to challenges to the law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, until he nominated her to the high court last year.

President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul divided the nation from the day he signed it into law, and that seems unlikely to change no matter how the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.

Some legal disputes, like the 2008 presidential election, the court can settle. Others rage on, such as abortion. It may take another decade to find the balance between private and public responsibility for health care in America, a nation disdainful of big government yet historically unable to guarantee affordable basic coverage to its citizens.

"Either way it rules, the Supreme Court decision will not end the debate on health care," said former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an influential Democratic adviser. "It is, and will largely remain, a debate on the role of government."

The Supreme Court's announcement on Monday that it will take up the constitutional challenge to what Republicans deride as "Obamacare," sets the stage for a decision next summer in the heat of the presidential election campaign.

A conservative-leaning panel of U.S. appellate judges on Tuesday upheld President Barack Obama's health care law as constitutional, helping set up a Supreme Court fight.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington issued a split opinion upholding the law. The court agreed to dismiss a Christian legal group's lawsuit claiming the requirement that all Americans get health insurance is unconstitutional and violates religious freedom.

The requirement has been the subject of several lawsuits, with some judges across the country ruling it unconstitutional and others upholding the law. That means the Supreme Court is sure to decide the fate of Obama's signature law. The high court is expected to decide soon, perhaps within days, whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm.

The Supreme Court could decide as early as Nov. 10 whether to hear a challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul this term.

Federal appeals court rulings on health care from Atlanta, Cincinnati and Richmond are on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Nov. 10.

If they agree then to hear any or all of those cases, the decision would be announced that day or when the court meets in public session the following Monday. Such a timetable would allow the court to hear arguments over the health care law in late March and would give the justices three months to craft their opinions.

The central issue is whether the requirement for individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.

A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.

The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.

But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a "major concern" that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.

A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion.

Health care real estate investment trust Ventas Inc. said a federal court has ruled it can immediately collect $102 million in damages awarded by a federal jury in 2009 in a judgment against HCP Inc.

The two companies had agreed to delay payment of the funds while HCP appealed the decision. In May, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment and ordered a second trial to decide punitive damages. Those proceedings are set to begin in February.

Ventas, based in Chicago, said late Monday that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled that HCP could not further delay enforcement of the judgment. In the case, Ventas accused HCP of driving up the purchase price of Sunrise Senior Living real estate investment trust.

HCP of Long Beach, Calif., said in a separate statement it will promptly pay the $102 million. It had accrued the full amount in the third quarter of 2009, and the payment will have no additional impact on its earnings.

Ventas operates a portfolio of senior housing communities, skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, medical office buildings and other properties in 47 states and two Canadian provinces.