Two weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will expand health insurance to millions of currently uninsured Americans.

Obamacare, as it is popularly known, is a bill that marks the culmination of decades of legislative attempts to reform America’s health care system.

One of the most well-known and controversial features of the bill is the individual mandate, which requires that most Americans have health insurance. The mandate is the central provision of the bill.

“In the short term, the decision will likely be noted for sustaining the mandate, and hence the lynchpin of the PPACA,” said Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., the John S. Stone chair, director of faculty research and a professor of law at the University of Alabama School of Law. “However, the longer-term implications of the ruling will likely relate to new and clearer limits on the federal government’s ability to use the commerce power to regulate individual conduct unrelated to commercial or economic activity and enhanced protections for the state governments that elect to participate in federal welfare programs.”

The ruling could affect students at the University, as well.

“For those students who wish to obtain their health insurance through UA, the University offers coverage to students for purchase through United HealthCare Student Resources,” John Kasberg, senior insurance administrator at UA, said. “For undergraduates who wish to enroll in this coverage, they must take a minimum of six hours on campus. Graduate students must take a minimum of three hours.”

There were some parts of the bill that were rejected by the Court. For instance, according to the ruling and in conflict with the law as originally written, changes to Medicare eligibility must be implemented on a prospective and voluntary basis on the part of the states.

Even so, the law will remain an important part of the political landscape for decades to come.

“Although the immediate act impact of [the new relationship between federal and state governments] then the decision to sustain the mandate as a tax, their long term importance equals, and perhaps exceeds, the importance of the mandate ruling,” Krotoszynski said.