Protesters rally on March23, 2016, in support of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptivemandate. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ)

A decision late Friday declaring the AffordableCare Act unlawful triggered a furious weekend debate about thevalidity of the ruling and its fate before anappeals court and ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the 55-page decision in Texas v. UnitedStates, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth,Texas, agreed with 20 states challenging the law thatcongressional action last year to eliminate the penalty imposed bythe individual mandate in the act made it unconstitutional. In themore controversial part of O'Connor's decision, he said that thedemise of the mandate rendered the entire law invalid, because itcould not be severed from the mandate.

Related: Hospitals, insurers sink as ACA ruling joltsinvestors

Democratic attorneys general who intervened in the caseimmediately vowed they would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit, putting the law on the path to review in thenext year or so by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the law in2012. Trump on Monday declared in a tweet: “A confirmingSupreme Court Decision will lead to GREAT HealthCare results forAmericans!”

O'Connor's ruling arrived at a time when “health insurers havealready locked in benefits and prices for 2019 health coverage andare almost done with ordinary applicant enrollment for 2019coverage,” according to sibling publicationBenefitsPRO.

How the Trump Justice Department will handle the case isuncertain; in the Texas case, the U.S. government agreed themandate was unconstitutional, but disagreed on severability. Whatfollows is a snapshot of what legal scholars and advocates aresaying about O'Connor's ruling:

>> JonathanAdler, professor at Case Western Reserve University Schoolof Law, and Yale Law School professor Abbe Gluck: ”A rulingthis consequential had better be based on rock-solid legalargument. Instead, the opinion by Judge Reed O'Connor is anexercise of raw judicial power, unmoored from the relevantdoctrines concerning when judges may strike down a whole lawbecause of a single alleged legal infirmity buried within.”[The New York Times]

>> NicholasBagley, professor at University of Michigan LawSchool: ”Nothing changes for the time being. Andnothing should change. The legal arguments in previous rounds oflitigation over the ACA may have been weak, but they were notfrivolous. This case is different; it's an exercise of raw judicialactivism. Don't for a moment mistake it for the rule of law.”[The Washington Post]

>> Hadley HeathManning, policy director, Independent Women'sForum: “Judge O'Connor's ruling is common sense: Theindividual mandate cannot be a proper use of Congress's taxingpower now that there is no tax penalty for going uninsured.Americans should celebrate this decision and welcome theadvancement of this case to the appellate level and then theSupreme Court. … This case should encourage lawmakers on both sidesof the aisle to consider a radically different approach centerednot on government rules but on patient choice and high quality carefor all.”

>> MartyLederman, visiting associate professor, GeorgetownUniversity Law Center: “Severability's the least ofit—it's indefensible on the merits, too, because there isn't any'mandate' to maintain health insurance. Oh, and BTW, O'Connordidn't enjoin anything, let alone 'strike down' the ACA.”[Twitter]

>> JoshBlackman, South Texas College of Law and author of two booksabout the Affordable Care Act: “Judge O'Connor was correctto find that the individual mandate can no longer be saved.However, I part company on the second part. The court should haveonly set aside the mandate, as well as the guaranteed issue andcommunity rating. The remainder of the ACA can be severed. … Hisconstitutional analysis concerning the mandate was supported by amajority of the Supreme Court. … Judge O'Connor's ultimateconclusion on severability—that the entire ACA must fall if themandate is unconstitutional—was supported by the NFIB jointdissenters. Judge O'Connor's sweeping ruling has the foundation offour votes on the Supreme Court. [The Volokh Conspiracy]

>> Ted Frank,Competitive Enterprise Institute: “Not a fan of ACA orKing v. Burwell decision, and usually a fan of Texas, butthis is an embarrassingly bad decision, and if a liberal judge hadissued something like it goring a conservative ox, conservativeswould be rightly up in arms.” [Twitter]

Read more:

• One side effect of the ACA? Fewerevictions.
• CMS has 'contingency plans' if ACA isoverturned
• The dismantling of the ACA: Atimeline