The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through Wednesday, which is commonly referred to as the Health Care Reform Act.

President Barack Obama has focused on health insurance reform as a key piece of legislation of his administration.

The reform will change the way Americans go about their health care in the future and will have several policy changes for students, including one that allows them to remain as dependents on their parents’ insurance plans till the age of 26.

Political rhetoric has heightened controversies over the Affordable Care Act, but the Supreme Court is only focusing on one major issue, said Dirk Deam, senior lecturer of political science who teaches courses on constitutional law and is a lawyer.

“The matter that comes down to question in this particular case is the extent to which the individual mandate is constitutional, whether the federal government can require people to purchase a product in the private market to accommodate public needs,” Deam said.

The minimum coverage provision, or individual mandate, requires that each individual obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage by 2014 or be subject to a penalty fee.

The case came to the Supreme Court after 26 states, including Iowa, questioned the constitutionality of this provision, stating that the federal government does not have the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance.

The Supreme Court may not yet have to make a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Based off the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act, it may be found that the justices cannot hear the case concerning the individual mandate until after the first penalties are enacted in 2015.

Both parties pushed for the rejection of the Anti-Injunction Act argument on Monday, wishing that the case be heard now.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts, along with justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, pressed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on this question: If the government can make people buy health insurance, then what limits are there? Can people be forced to buy things like cars and broccoli? Justice Anthony Kennedy says the government will have a heavy burden under the Constitution for such an “unprecedented” idea of forcing people to buy insurance.

The case Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida will have major results, no matter what the decision.

If the court rules in favor of the federal government, then the reformation of health insurance will continue to move forward, with changes to the system until 2020.

If the court rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then nearly 80 years of court decisions concerning the Commerce Clause will be called into question along with a substantial amount of legislation passed in Congress during that period.

The health care law would not collapse if the Supreme Court strikes down the requirement that most Americans carry medical insurance or face a penalty.

Experts say the overhaul would lurch ahead.

But it would make an already complicated law a lot harder to carry out, risking repercussions for a U.S. health care system widely seen as wasteful, unaffordable and unable to deliver consistently high quality.

“[The case is] not that important in the grand scheme of things in constitutional law, it’s important politically because it’s been the central focus of Republican opposition to the president in particular,” Deam said. “Constitutionally, the issues are pretty straightforward and they’re not as politically charged as the rhetoric you hear.”

The merit briefs, legal documents presented to the court by each party on the inherent rights and wrongs of a case, were submitted to the Supreme Court before oral arguments began and outline each party’s position.

The Department of Health and Human Services, the petitioner in this case, is arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

According to the federal government’s brief, “the individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section … is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce.”

Deam said the current rule of law of the Commerce Clause is “if the matter has substantial effect on interstate commerce and it doesn’t offend some other constitutional principle then Congress’ power is plenary.”

Deam explained that in order to find the mandate unconstitutional, it is necessary to find a separate constitutional offense.

The respondents of the case, the state of Florida, argue that the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional in it “ … rests on a claim of power … the power to compel individuals to engage in commerce,” power they say, the Constitution does not provide for.

According to the state of Florida’s merit brief, “The federal government’s attempt to ground the individual mandate in the Necessary and Proper Clause fails at the outset because the mandate is not a ‘Law … for carrying into Execution’ the power to regulate interstate commerce.

“The federal government alternatively attempts to demonstrate that the individual mandate is proper because ‘insurance … is the predominant method of paying for health care in this country.’ The relevant question is not whether insurance is an ‘ordinary means’ of financing health care services, but whether compelling individuals to purchase insurance is an ‘ordinary means of executing’ the commerce power,” stated the state of Florida brief.

One related case, which helps to set precedent, is the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. This case involved Roscoe Filburn, a farmer from Ohio, who sued to overturn a federal law stating how much grain he could grow. During the Depression, the government regulated the amount of grain farmers could grow in order to encourage the growth of depressed grain prices.

Filburn grew more wheat than what was allowed, but he did not intend to sell his extra grain but feed it back to his own livestock.

“If Filburn fed his own wheat to his animals, then that meant he wasn’t buying it off the market, which was interfering with the demand that Congress was trying to control,” Deam said in explaining why the court’s decision went against Filburn.

“It may seem a little weird, a little intrusive for Congress to tell an individual farmer that he can’t feed his own wheat to his animals, but if the court says that’s what Congress wants as the way with dealing with the terribly depressed prices, then fine, Congress has the power to do that.”

The federal government states another case in their brief to be used as precedent, “In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.”

Oral arguments began just after 10 a.m. Monday and will conclude Wednesday. Audio of the arguments can be found at supremecourt.gov. A decision on the case is expected in late June.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.