It's being called the "decision of the century."
Anytime between now and the end of June, the Supreme Court will rule whether the health care law championed by President Barack Obama will be tossed out as an unconstitutional.
The state of Florida is leading the lawsuit, which says the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That mandate would require almost all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.
There's much speculation about what the high court's decision will be.
The Washington Post interviewed a Texas Trial Consultant named Ryan Malphurs. He took the six hour and 14 minute debate among the high court justices and broke it down, statement by statement, to try and determine which side was winning.
He based his findings on the percentage of what he perceived were pro and anti-healthcare questions asked by the justices.
In his findings, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., both who are largely thought to be determining factors in whether the law is considered a constitutional exercise of Congress' power, were very skeptical of it.
Malphurs took this, and the rest of the information garnered in his study, to be bad news for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Outside the Supreme Court, the individual mandate isn't too popular, either. A CBS News/New York Times poll taken last week revealed that 68% of respondents believe the individual mandate to buy health insurance, violates the Constitution and want the court to overturn the law in part or in whole.
But as CNN points out, publicly, Obama is optimistic.
President Obama says he's, "confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, and I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
Whether the justices of the high court see it the same way, will soon be seen.