Two weeks after President Obama announced he supports gay marriage, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that his announcement -- politically -- looks to be a wash.

Larry Downing / Reuters

President Barack Obama gestures upon arriving at Joplin Regional Airport aboard Air Force One in Missouri.

In the poll, a combined 17 percent says it makes them "much more likely" or "somewhat more likely" they will vote for him. That's compared with a combined 20 percent who say the announcement will make them more likely to vote for Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage.

Perhaps more importantly, 62 percent say the president's support for gay marriage doesn't make a difference in their vote -- including 75 percent of independents, 76 percent of moderates, 81 percent of African Americans, and 65 percent of residents in the Midwest who say that.

"From my distance, it looks more like a voting draw than anything else," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

In addition, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that a majority -- 54 percent -- would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal. Twenty four percent would actively support such a law, while 30 percent would favor it but not actively support it.

By comparison, a combined 40 percent say they would oppose such a law.

Asked to reconcile this majority supporting gay marriage in their states with North Carolina recently voting to for an amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, McInturff says the respondents in this poll -- adults -- are different than the types of people who would vote in that kind of election.

The full NBC/WSJ poll -- conducted May 16-20 of 1,000 adults, with an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points -- will be released at 6:30 pm ET.

In two weeks, California voters will take part in an intriguing electoral experiment –and while House Democrats are likely to emerge better off from it, the question is how much better off? Will they see a net gain of two or three House seats? Or perhaps a five, six, or seven seat score?

When Californians cast their ballots in the June 5 primary, they’ll be in new congressional districts drawn not by political insiders, as was done in the past (and as is still done in most states), but by a citizen panel.

For decades, House members and their allies in the state legislature used gerrymandering to protect incumbents of both parties. That changed when voters adopted citizen redistricting in 2008.

As governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger “pushed redistricting reform for the purpose of creating competitive seats” and “Republicans had dreamed that the whole state would become competitive as a result of this process,” said Bruce Cain, professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert on redistricting in the state.

Three other ingredients are being added to that redistricting experiment: the retirement of seven incumbents (four Republicans and three Democrats) from the California delegation, a 28 percent increase in the state’s Latino population since 2000 (although the increase in actual Latino voters doesn’t necessarily match the increase in the overall Latino population), and a new top-two balloting system under which only the leading vote-getters in each congressional primary advance to the November ballot.

Decision 2012 and the myth of the 'Catholic vote'

Only one seat in California changed hands in the last ten years, but according to the latest ratings from the non-partisan Cook Political Report, there are now four Democratic and five GOP House incumbents in competitive districts. At this same point after redistricting in 2001, Cook rated only two California House races as competitive.

“The redistricting definitely favored the Democrats and nobody who has analyzed it thinks differently,” said Cain. “It would be shocking if the Democrats don’t pick up some congressional seats,” he said, but added, “I’d be surprised if the Democrats do better than (a net gain of) four or five.”

“California has been a fairly stable market for congressional races over last decade,” said Dan Conston, the communications director for the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican Super PAC that had more than $5 million in cash as of April 15 to spend on House races.

“Under the new maps, the entire field has been shaken up and California will now be one of the key battlegrounds for control of the House for the next decade,” he said.

Conston added, “When you consider the national battlefields, it is clear that if we perform well in California, it is very difficult for Democrats to have any shot of reclaiming the majority.”

Thanks to the Citizens United decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, and other federal court rulings, mega-donors in California and elsewhere can give unlimited money to Super PACs (both Democratic and Republican) bypassing donation caps to candidates or party committees.

Conston said that the number of newly competitive seats in California has “piqued donor interest. That is why we set up a separate fund within the Congressional Leadership Fund where all resources raised go to our California efforts.”

Among the Democrats at whom Republican groups will be aiming their ads are Rep. Lois Capps and Rep. John Garamendi, both of whom will now be competing on less Democratic-leaning turf than their present districts.

Leaders of the Democratic Super PAC, which works on House races, are also making California their focus.

In its fund raising pitch to donors, the House Majority PAC said, “Democrats have the opportunity to go from a 34-19 majority in California to a 41-12 majority – a net gain of seven seats, nearly a third of what we need to retake the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives ... This may well be a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

But without a competitive presidential or Senate race in California, there will be no pull for Democratic voters from the top of the ticket. “This is particularly important in the Hispanic community – the presidential election will not be focused on communicating with these voters in California,” the fund-raising pitch said.

All the more enticing for Democratic mega-donors to give to the House Majority PAC, which had nearly $1.7 million in cash on hand as of March 31.

Like its Republican rival, it too has a California-specific fund and appeals to home-state pride in its pitch: “For a long time, California donors have dutifully contributed to Democratic efforts and that money has been spent everywhere but California. In 2012, California donors have the opportunity to fund critically important races right here in the Golden State.”

First Thoughts: Obama unloads on Romney

Initially, some Democrats – including President Barack Obama – denounced Super PACs and non-profit groups called 501c4s, which were given a new birth of fundraising freedom under the Citizens United decision.

But “I don’t hear that (objection) as much (from Democratic donors) anymore,” said Ali Lapp, executive director of the House Majority PAC. “More and more, there are a lot of Democratic donors out there that totally understand that if we try to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back, the country is not going to get any better.”

Lapp said, “The way I think about, there are nine competitive seats in California ... Of those nine, I think we will win five or six – if we’re really lucky, seven. If we won only two, it would not be a happy day; we would have had a horrible election if we won only two of those nine.”

One place where House Majority PAC had been spending money in recent weeks is in the new 26th Congressional District in Ventura County, where four Democrats and one Republican, state Sen. Tony Strickland, are running. So far, Strickland has outraised all other contenders by a wide margin.

Also on the June 5 ballot is a former-Republican-turned-independent, county supervisor Linda Parks, who won a glowing endorsement from The Los Angeles Times which sees her as exactly the type of centrist pragmatist that reformers had hoped citizen-driven redistricting would promote.

If Parks and Strickland are the top two finishers on June 5, Democrats will start the November campaign already one seat behind.

“This is a lean-Democratic district that in November has a better chance of going for a Democrat than for a Republican,” said Lapp.

“But because of the dynamics of the top-two primary system where you have an independent with very high name ID and you have a bunch of Democrats on the ballot, there was a very real chance we could be squandering this opportunity if we didn’t get involved and make sure that voters knew who Julia Brownley is, what she stands for, and that she is the leading Democrat in the race.”

But that race is only one of the places where the House Majority PAC is likely to invest money.  “On June 6, we’ll see what the match-ups are and – knock on wood – we’ll get the strong candidates we’re expecting to get from all these districts,” Lapp said.

Two major Catholic institutions filed lawsuits on Monday challenging the Obama administration's mandate that religiously affiliated employers offer health insurance for their workers that includes coverage for contraception.

Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images

The University of Notre Dame filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a Health and Human Services rule on contraceptives.

The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and the University of Notre Dame separately filed lawsuits in federal court challenging a Health and Human Services rule that would require them to offer coverage for contraception, the use of which runs contrary to Catholic teaching.

"For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice — schools, hospitals and social service organizations — are not ‘religious enough,'" said Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, in a statement.

Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, said: "This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives."

(Jenkins emphasized that the university's suit was not intended to prevent access to contraception or to prevent the government from providing services.)

The contraceptive regulation erupted into a political firestorm in February, when Republicans seized on the proposed regulation as an example of a government "assault" on religious liberty.

In the face of public pressure, President Barack Obama announced a compromise in which employers could opt against including coverage for contraception, but insurers would be required to provide the option of coverage of those services to employees who wanted it.

The proposal became a hot-button political issue in much of February, especially as Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail sought to strengthen exemptions for religiously affiliated employers from regulations that conflict with their faith's official teaching.

Updated 4:50 p.m. ET- President Barack Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay rights advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from views expressed during the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Related: The ‘evolution’ of Obama’s stance on gay marriage

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Related: Romney calls marriage 'tender' issue, skirts Obama remarks

In making his announcement, Obama completes what he had described as an “evolution” in his views on this issue, hastened by growing fervor this week involving gay rights. The growing pressure was capped Tuesday by North Carolina voters’ approval of a constitutional amendment banning not only same-sex marriages, but civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, as well.

Obama’s shift not only speaks to a broad swath of the electorate, which has exhibited increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage in opinion polls, but also gay and lesbian voters who compose a core part of Obama’s base, and have been major fundraisers for his re-election.

ABC News

President Barack Obama appears in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, speaking in support of gay marriage. "It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," the president said.

Obama explained that he had hesitated in fully supporting same-sex marriage because he thought civil unions would be sufficient.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he told ABC.

The president had found himself under increasing pressure this week to state his position unequivocally after Vice President Joe Biden voiced support for same-sex marriage.

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties," Biden said on NBC’s "Meet the Press." "And quite frankly, I don't see much of a distinction beyond that."

While the White House emphasized that Biden’s position wasn’t representative of the entire administration, Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s pronouncement Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in support of same-sex marriage added to pressure on the president.

“I have no update on the president's personal views,” press secretary Jay Carney said repeatedly at Monday’s White House press briefing in reference to the president’s self-styled “evolution” on gay marriage.

As a result, Obama has risked fallout among his political base. The Washington Post reported this week that gay and liberal donors had threatened to withhold financial support for the president or a super PAC due to his refusal to sign an executive order barring discrimination of gays and lesbians in federal contracting.

And Obama was expected, too, to encounter frustration at a major Hollywood fundraiser this week at the home of actor George Clooney.

The overwhelming approval, too, of the measure, which Obama had opposed, in North Carolina -- a key swing state -- heightened speculation that the president might address the issue.

RELATED: North Carolina approves ban on same-sex marriage

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney re-iterated his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions on Tuesday.

"I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor and that I've expressed many times," he said following the president's announcement. "I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."

Earlier, he told KDVR-TV in Denver: "I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name ... My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

Obama has faced tremendous pressure throughout his administration to advance gay rights.

Among his earliest acts as president included signing an executive order extending benefits to federal employees in same-sex partnerships in 2009. Obama also ordered the government to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act -- the 1996 laws allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states -- in court.

The administration’s crowning achievement on gay rights came more methodically, though -- sometimes to the frustration of advocates for same-sex rights.

Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -- the military’s ban on openly gay or lesbian service members -- into law in December 2010. But the repeal came after months of legislative wrangling, and the president’s refusal to sign a simple order to make the change. And even after Obama signed the law, the implementation took months.

FIRST READ: Is Obama's gay marriage stance all about suburban voters?

Same-sex marriage is hardly the hot-button issue it was compared to the last decade, though. Support for it now eclipses opposition; 49 percent of Americans said that favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry, according to the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, while 40 percent oppose it. (In October 2009, 49 percent opposed same-sex marriages, while 41 percent supported them.)

Opinion has shifted especially among independent voters, who back marriage rights 46 percent to 37 percent. About three in 10 Republicans said they, too, support same-sex marriage.

However, of the 18 states making composing the “toss-up” or “lean” categories in NBC’s battleground map, 10 have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions outright, either by constitutional amendment or statute. Just two -- Iowa and New Hampshire -- have legalized gay marriage outright, while other states operate in more nebulous space when it comes to gay and lesbian couples.

AP via Rolling Stone

The Rolling Stone cover with President Obama. The issue hits newsstands Friday, April 27.

President Barack Obama knows the stakes of this year's election are high.

After all, he told Rolling Stone magazine, his legacy thus far has been met with mixed reviews.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in June on whether the individual insurance mandate that is a key component of the Obama administration’s health care law is unconstitutional.

Though the economy has stabilized, a recent NBC/WSJ poll found that voters feel presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney leads Obama 40% to 34% when it comes to considering which candidate has savvier ideas on shoring up the economy.

Still, Obama feels confident that this fall voters will reject what he sees as Republicans' "shift to an agenda that is far out of the mainstream — and, in fact, is contrary to a lot of Republican precepts."

He also underscored that though there have been tense exchanges between his administration and GOP congressional leadership, the president does not see the relationship as “frosty.”

“When John Boehner and I sit down, I enjoy a conversation with him. I don’t think he’s a bad person,” Obama said. “I think he’s patriotic. I think that the Republicans up on the Hill care about this country, but they have a very ideologically rigid view of how to move this country forward, and a lot of how they approach issues is defined by ‘Will this help us defeat the president?’ as opposed to ‘Will this move the country forward?'"

In the interview, which writer and Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner described as "somber," Obama said that in many ways, the election is a referendum on his first-term performance.

"Now, the burden on me is going to be to describe for the American people how the progress we’ve made over the past three years, if sustained will actually lead to the kind of economic security that they’re looking for,” Obama said. “There’s understandable skepticism because things are still tough out there.”

Obama acknowledged that the unemployment rate, which is at 8.2 percent, is “way too high.”

"You have folks whose homes are underwater because the housing bubble burst, people are still feeling the pinch from high gas prices,” Obama said. “The fact of the matter is that times are still tough for too many people, and the recovery is still not as robust as we’d like, and that’s what will make it a close election.”

The past four years have also given the president an opportunity to examine issues of race and describes his own views on the topic as “complicated.”

"Race has been one of the fault lines in American culture and American politics from the start," he said. "I never bought into the notion that by electing me, somehow we were entering into a post-racial period.

"On the other hand, I’ve seen in my own lifetime how racial attitudes have changed and improved, and anybody who suggests they haven’t isn’t paying attention or is trying to make a rhetorical point.

"We all see it every day, and me being in this Oval Office is a testimony to changes that have been taking place.”

More: Obama leads Romney by six points, but Republican ahead on economy
Girl meets Obama in a bar, makes best surprised face ever 
Watch Obama slow-jam with Jimmy Fallon 
Obama campaign offers dinner at Clooney's 

TODAY.com contributor Halimah Abdullah is the site’s woman in Washington.

Jae C. Hong / AP

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, accompanied by by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., talks to reporters in Aston, Pa., Monday, April 23, 2012.

Wednesday’s argument before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of an Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants is almost as much of a 2012 campaign event as it is a courtroom face-off between the Obama administration and Republicans.

This week’s oral argument focuses attention on illegal immigration just a few days after the most prominent Latino Republican, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, highlighted the division between himself and Mitt Romney on the Arizona law, saying, “I do not believe that laws like Arizona’s should be a model for the country.”

A potential vice presidential running mate for Romney, Rubio campaigned with Romney on Monday in the Philadelphia suburbs. Romney told reporters he was studying an immigration bill that Rubio is drafting.

Rubio also said last week, “I understand why the people of Arizona did what they did (in passing the immigration law, known as S.B. 1070) and I think if you live in a state like Arizona that was facing and is facing the challenges that Arizona faces, people would understand why they reacted the way they did.”

He added that Arizona had a constitutional right to enact its law, but “I would much rather the federal government deal with the illegal immigration issue and modernize our legal immigration system ... .”

Rubio’s comments put him at odds with Romney, who in a debate in Arizona in February called the state’s immigration law “a model.”

Romney has also said he hoped the law “will be implemented with care and caution not to single out individuals based upon their ethnicity.” 

The Arizona law, enacted in 2010 by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, makes it a state crime for non-citizens who are unlawfully in the United States to work in Arizona, requires police officers to check the immigration status of any person involved in a routine stop, and requires the arrest of any person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe is an illegal immigrant.

Recommended: Mexican immigration to U.S. at a standstill, report says

Before the Supreme Court
Wednesday’s argument is the second time in two years that an Arizona immigration statute has been before the high court.

Last May, in a 5-3 decision, the justices upheld an Arizona law requiring employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check the legal status of newly hired employees, and which permits the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, recused herself from that case and also from the case being argued Wednesday.

Arguing for Arizona on Wednesday will be Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general in the Bush administration; facing him will be Donald Verrilli, the current solicitor general. They’re the same duo who squared off in the oral argument at the high court three weeks ago over the the president's health care overhaul.

Kagan’s recusal creates the possibility of a four-to-four split among the justices. Such a split would leave in place the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which blocked enforcement of key sections of the Arizona law last year.

But the appeals court decision wouldn’t be binding precedent, which means other states could enact laws similar to Arizona’s (as a few states already have done) and hope a future Supreme Court ruling would uphold them.

The Obama administration argues that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on federal turf.

Verrilli says in his brief to the high court that allowing states to put illegal immigrants in jail “would impermissibly interfere with the Executive Branch’s discretion, conferred by Congress, to determine whether or not a particular alien’s unlawful presence warrants detention or removal.”

The Arizona law, he contended, deprives the federal government of the power to decide whether a particular illegal immigrant in Arizona ought to deported or be allowed to stay in United States.

In an interview with NBC’s Pete Williams, Clement said a crucial issue is “to what extent Congress, having made it pretty clear they want the immigration laws enforced, can essentially have that judgment overridden in part by the Justice Department and their enforcement posture.”

He contended that “this Arizona law is exactly what Congress had in mind, especially when it comes to making sure that there’s cooperation between state and local law enforcement and the federal immigration officials.”

In his brief, Clement also contended that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration law focused “only on the demand side” by penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants.

He said the Arizona law “reinforces” the 1986 federal law by “addressing the supply side” – punishing non-citizens unlawfully in the United States who try to work in Arizona.

What it could mean to Latino voters
Just as the high court’s “Obamacare” decision, when it is handed down this summer, will have an impact on the November election, so, too, will the Arizona decision.

If the justices rule in favor of Arizona, Democrats hope it will spark a surge of Latino voter registration and a wave of Latino votes in November not only in Arizona but in in hotly contested states such as Colorado, Nevada, and Florida.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who represents a Latino-majority congressional district in Arizona, said, “If the court were to uphold the law, the alternative left to many of us would be that we need to politically change the culture in Arizona because the court will not be that refuge for us.”

Conversely, if the justices strike down the law, “it’s kind of like, ‘we fought the law and we won.’ But that victory wouldn’t dampen what’s going on out there” with Democratic efforts to register and mobilize Latino voters, Grijalva said.

Stanford University political scientist Gary Segura, who is a principal in the polling firm Latino Decisions, said, “There’s only good news for the president in this one, at least among Latino voters and probably overall.”

Segura points to the increase in Latino voting in California after voters in that state approved Proposition 187 to deny state benefits to illegal immigrants in 1994. If the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law, that would probably mobilize Latino voters more effectively than if the court strikes down the law, he said. But either way, “simply having the court raise the salience of immigration helps the president,” Segura said.

Romney seems aware that there’s some political risk for Republicans in the immigration issue. At a fund-raising event last week in Florida, Romney warned donors that polling shows Latinos overwhelmingly favoring Obama – a fact which "spells doom for us," he said.

Romney, Rubio, and other Republicans seem to be edging towards a more accommodating approach to younger non-citizens who were brought to the United States as children by their illegal immigrant parents.

The Senate has twice voted to reject the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act which would give a road to citizenship to non-citizens who’d been brought to the United States as children under age 16 by their illegal immigrant parents.

A new proposal?
Rubio has been crafting a Republican DREAM bill that would allow such young non-citizens to stay in the country and apply for residency.

Romney was non-committal Monday about Rubio’s proposal.

“He and I have spoken about his thinking on his version of a different act than the DREAM Act that’s been proposed in the Senate,” Romney told reporters Monday as Rubio stood by his side at a press conference.

Romney said “the one that’s been proposed in the Senate creates a new category of citizenship for certain individuals. The senator’s proposal does not create that new category, but instead provides visas” for younger people brought to United States by their illegal immigrant parents. “I’m taking a look at his proposal. It has many features to commend it, but it’s something that we’re studying.”

Referring to the Rubio proposal, Frank Sharry, a veteran advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, said “I think it has caught the Obama administration and some Democrats a little bit on the back foot.” Sharry said if Rubio can bring a dozen or so GOP senators with him to support his proposal it might create momentum for a vote in the Senate.

Romney said at that Florida fundraising event last week his party must offer a "Republican DREAM Act," although it’s not yet entirely clear how a GOP version would differ from the one which the Senate rejected in 2007 and again in 2010, with most Republican senators and some Democrats voting against it. Romney has pledged to veto the Democratic version of the DREAM Act.

As for this November’s election, Segura said there’s an important difference between the DREAM Act and the Arizona law. “The DREAM Act is a motivator around the issue of immigration for people who think that’s important and are emotionally attached to it, but S.B. 1070 has the potential to mobilize even people who are not all that interested in immigration.”

S.B. 1070 will have a wider motivating effect, he said, because the law opens the way to arresting people simply because they appear to be Latino or are speaking Spanish – even if they are American citizens or legal permanent residents. The only basis for identifying a non-citizen illegally in Arizona “would be the language that they’re speaking and their looks – and that affects all Latinos,” he said.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

Updated at 6:45p.m. ET Two years after a hard-fought victory, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment -- the health care reform law -- seemed at risk of being struck down as the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday.

“I think it’s very doubtful that court is going to find the health care law constitutional,” NBC’s Pete Williams reported after watching the two hours of oral argument before the high court. “I don’t see five votes to find the law constitutional.”

While it's difficult to know for certain after Tuesday's oral arguments, the conservative justices appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Court observers caution that one shouldn't read too much into what any particular justice says during oral arguments; a justice will sometimes test out a theory and his or her comments don’t necessarily indicate which way he or she will decide.

But there were few encouraging hints for the Obama administration from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote on the court, or from any of the conservative justices.

“It’s risky to predict, but if I had to predict right today, I would say the law is in trouble,” Williams said.

The court is expected to hand down its ruling in June.

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, who was in the court room Tuesday for the arguments, said it was “very worrisome” for the Obama administration’s side of the case. 

The fate of the health care overhaul hinges on the issue the justices weighed during the argument Tuesday morning: does Congress have the power to force individuals to buy a product they otherwise would not have purchased?

Much of Tuesday’s battle focused on the extent of Congress’s reach under the power to regulate interstate commerce which the Constitution assigns to it.

Court signals it will decide constitutionality of insurance mandate

The four liberal members of the court seemed inclined to accept the administration’s s argument that Congress has ample power under the commerce clause to require uninsured people to join the insurance market. 

But Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing the case for the Obama administration, was “hunting for a fifth vote -- and it really wasn’t at all obvious where that might come from,” Goldstein said.

Verrilli tried to defend the requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance. “Everyone subject to this regulation is in -- or will be in -- the health care market,” Verrilli told the court. “They are just being regulated in advance. That's exactly the kind of thing that ought to be left to the judgment of Congress and the democratically accountable branches of government.”

But Verrilli came under constant pressure from the conservative justices.

Kennedy asked Verrilli at one point “Can you (the government) create commerce in order to regulate it?” Verrilli replied, “That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Kennedy and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Kennedy told Verrilli at another point that the high court “must presume laws are constitutional. But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in ... a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

Justice Kennedy “seemed to have grave concerns,” Williams reported. It did not seem during the oral argument that Kennedy “found the justification that he needed” for the law, Williams said.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Chief Justice John Roberts told Verrilli that the Obama administration’s argument was built on the idea that people can’t control when they enter the market for health care or what they need when they enter that market.

“The same, it seems to me, would be true, say, for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever,” Roberts said. “You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will…. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?”

Listen to that exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Verrilli insisted that the two cases were different. 

In the same vein as Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito said the market for health care was no different from the market for burial. 
“I don't see the difference,” Alito said. “You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care, almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?”

Verrilli said “one big difference, Justice Alito, is you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants.” 

Listen to that exchange between Justice Alito and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Alito shot back, “Sure you do, because if you don't have money then the state is going to pay for it.” Or he added a family member is going to pay.

Making the most vigorous defense of the law was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said enactment of the health care law was akin to the creation of Social Security in 1935. 

Art Lien/NBC News

Paul Clement argues on behalf of the respondents of Florida.

“Congress, in the '30s, saw a real problem of people needing to have old age and survivor's insurance,” she said. “And yes, they did it through a tax, but they said everybody has got to be in it because if we don't have the healthy in it, there's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. So they required everyone to contribute.” 

Ginsburg said Social Security caused “a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said -- maybe some people still do today -- I could do much better if the government left me alone. I'd go into the private market… I'd make a great investment, and they're forcing me to paying for this Social Security that I don't want; but, that's constitutional.”

If Congress wants to address the problem of the uninsured then, Ginsburg said, “Social Security is its model.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Ginsburg and Paul Clement here (.wav)

Arguing on behalf of Florida and 25 other states was Paul Clement, the former solicitor general in the Bush administration, replied to Ginsburg that Congress could have raised taxes in order to pay for the uninsured -- instead of forcing people to buy insurance. “We could have a tax that's spread generally through everybody to raise the revenue to pay for that subsidy. That's the way we pay for most subsidies.”

Both conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree that Congress could require people who showed up at the doctor’s office for treatment for purchase insurance -- but the conservative justices seemed entirely unpersuaded that Congress could force people to buy insurance before they had any medical need.

Art Lien/NBC News

Attorney Michael Carvin represented the National Federation of Independent Business during the proceedings.

In what might be an encouraging signal for supporters of the health care law, Kennedy did display some concern about younger people who chose to go uninsured.  

In questioning attorney Michael Carvin, who was representing the National Federation of Independent Business, Kennedy raised the possibility that federal intervention might be justified.

“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries,” Kennedy said. “That's my concern in the case.”

Carvin replied that “it would be perfectly fine” if Congress allowed insurers to gauge actuarial risk for young people, but the 2010 law prohibits them from buying “the only economically sensible product” -- catastrophic insurance.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Health care overhaul supporters rally on the sidewalk outside ongoing legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 26 at the Supreme Court.

Updated at 6:45 p.m. ET After the first day of oral arguments in challenges to the landmark 2010 health care law, it seems clear that Supreme Court will not let a procedural tax issue stand in the way of deciding the constitutionality of the law.

“If there were any members of the court who were looking for an off ramp – who did not want to decide this case now during an election year, this would have been the way to go,” said NBC's Pete Williams after hearing the first day's arguments. But “none of them seem to want to take that,” he said.

At issue Monday was a law called the Anti-Injunction Act. Does that law require that those who challenge the penalty for failing to buy insurance actually pay the penalty first? That won’t occur until 2015, after the insurance purchase requirement takes effect.

The question hinged on the justices accepting the contention that the penalty is effectively a tax.

After hearing Monday’s argument, Williams reported that “there didn’t seem to be a single member of the Supreme Court that bought that argument.”

“I don’t believe there’s a single justice on the court who believes that it’s a tax. End of that question. So we’re obviously going to go on to the main event which is the individual mandate which will be argued tomorrow,” Williams said.

Monday’s argument was the prelude for the main event: Tuesday’s two hours of argument over whether Congress has the power to require that almost every American purchase health insurance.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the justices, "This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court's consideration of those issues."

Read the transcript of Monday's oral argument

One justice, Samuel Alito, focused on the apparent inconsistency in the government's argument that the penalty is not a tax, under the terms of the Anti-Injunction Act -- and yet the government also will claim in Tuesday's oral argument that when Congress created the individual mandate and the penalty for failing to buy insurance, it was acting under its constitutional power to tax.

Art Lien/AFP/Getty Images

This courtroom sketch by Art Lien shows Solicitor General Donald Verrilli speaking to Justice Antonin Scalia on March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court.

Verrilli said, "Congress has authority under the taxing power to enact a measure not labeled as a tax ... ."

In a question to Verrilli, Alito said, "Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?"

Verrilli replied, "No, Justice Alito, but the Court has held... that something can be a constitutional exercise of the taxing power whether or not it is called a tax."

Click here to listen to that exchange between Verrilli and Justice Alito

He said, "the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct tomorrow is different from the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct today. Tomorrow the question is whether Congress has the authority under the taxing power to enact it" and the precise words used in the law don't have a crucial effect on that question.

At least two justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seemed to accept the government's contention that the penalty was not a tax, with Ginsburg saying "this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise"

Click here to listen to that exchange between Long and Justice Ginsburg

Since the plaintiffs challenging the ACA had not made the Anti-Injunction Act argument, the justices appointed lawyer Robert Long to argue for the position that no one can file suit against the ACA’s individual insurance mandate until after the penalty on those who fail to buy insurance has been assessed.

As soon as President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law, several states and private organization filed suits to overturn it, arguing that the Constitution gave Congress no power to force people to buy insurance.

Long pointed out in his brief that the text of the ACA says the penalty imposed on people who don’t purchase health insurance shall be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes” -- so it is effectively a tax.

Long also said if Congress had wanted to create an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act in this case it would have done so when it passed the ACA in 2010.

 Related: Individual mandate will be in Supreme Court spotlight

He argued that for the Supreme Court to decide now on the constitutionality of the ACA “would be contrary to the policy that courts avoid deciding constitutional issues unless it is necessary to so do.”

Art Lien/AFP/Getty Images

This courtroom sketch by Art Lien shows attorney Robert A. Long speaking March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court.

nd it would premature, he said, for the court to act since it’s possible that Congress “could amend or repeal the Affordable Care Act at some point before penalties are assessed and collected, beginning in 2015. An amendment (to the law) could avoid the need for this Court to decide the constitutional issue presented in this case.”

But despite those arguments there’s tremendous pressure on the high court to resolve the uncertainty over the health care overhaul now -- since many of the provisions of the law are interrelated and the court itself has created the expectation that it will finally settle the constitutional issue.

Recommended: Health care ruling could send fight back to Congress

Arguing the case on Monday for 90 minutes were Long, Verrilli, and former Assistant Attorney General Gregory Katsas, now in private practice, representing the state of Florida and other states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

President Obama called Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke on Friday to offer her words of encouragement amid a controversy involving Rush Limbaugh's words toward her.

Stay informed: Like us on Facebook for the latest from our politics team

Obama called Fluke shortly before her appearance on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Fluke said in a subsequent appearance on the program.

"He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women," Fluke said in her description of the call.  "What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud."

Fluke has become an unwitting figure in the middle of a political battle over access to contraception that has ensnared Washington in recent weeks. She favors increased access to contraception, and testified to that effect before a congressional panel assembled by Democrats.

In reaction to Fluke's testimony, Limbaugh said on his radio show that Fluke was a "slut," because, by asking for access to birth control subsidized by an insurer, she was essentially asking to be paid for sex.

Democrats have vocally criticized Limbaugh for the remark, and a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner labeled the conservative radio giant's comments as "inappropriate."

There's a political element to the battle over contraception and Fluke's testimony. Democrats believe that they can highlight critics like Limbaugh and other Republicans to portray the GOP as out of touch, especially to women voters. Republicans, on the other hand, believe there is political traction in framing the battle in Washington as a fight against government encroachment on religion. (The origin of the battle stems from an Obama administration regulation that would have required employers, even if they have moral objections to it, to provide access to contraception as part of their health insurance policy for employees.)

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum have addressed Limbaugh's comments on Fluke since the host first made them on Wednesday.

John Makely / msnbc.com

An empty lot in Detroit's Palmer Woods neighborhood where Mitt Romney's boyhood home once stood.

Mike O'Brien of NBCpolitics.com writes:

DETROIT -- All that's left of Mitt Romney's boyhood home is an empty lot, his family's old house in Detroit's Palmer Woods neighborhood having been bulldozed two years ago in May.

The Romney family home fell victim to a familiar predator in the city of Detroit: abandonment and blight. The city ordered the demolition of the home, at 1860 Balmoral Drive, in 2010 as part of an initiative to address blight throughout the city.

Romney has made frequent mention of his roots in southeast Michigan during his campaigning before Tuesday's primary in the state. He elaborated on the fate of his boyhood home, in which the family lived until 1953 according to the Boston Globe, at a stop Thursday evening in Milford:

 "I was born in Detroit, Harper Hospital, our home was right around six-mile and Woodward, a place called Palmer Park. And uh, we had a home there. It’s been bulldozed now because it turned, I guess, into an eyesore or a place where drugs were being used so they had to tear it down. It was a lovely home."

Ricardo Thomas/ The Detroit News via AP

This May 15, 2010 photo shows the onetime home of Michigan's Romney family in the Palmer Park section of Detroit. A demolition crew in Detroit torn down on Tuesday June 8, 2010 the 5,500-square-foot house that was lived in by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney when he was a child. The dilapidated, two-story home torn down Tuesday in the Palmer Woods area was one of 3,000 set for demolition this year under Detroit Mayor Dave Bing's plans to improve neighborhoods by getting rid of dangerous structures and eyesores.

 It's a different portrait of the property painted in an Associated Press story about the demolition:

 Unlike thousands of other vacant houses in the city, the structure at 1860 Balmoral in Detroit's exclusive Palmer Woods area wasn't open to trespass, neighbors said as it crashed and crumbled to the ground.

 There didn't appear to be any vandalism and it certainly didn't become a haven to drug dealers like many others across the city, 58-year-old Tyrone Stewart said.

Mike O'Brien / msnbc.com

Boarded up storefronts on Woodward Ave. near Palmer Park in Detroit.

 The Palmer Woods neighborhood is hardly a portrait of poverty or disrepair; most of the homes in the community are well maintained and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, even in a depressed housing market. A golf course and the University of Detroit Jesuit high school, an all boys' Catholic prep school, are nearby. A more familiar sight of abandoned and crumbling storefronts stand across Woodward Avenue at 7 Mile, opposite the east end of Palmer Woods.

 Len and Barb Marshick of Belleville, Mich. said at a Friday night rally for Rick Santorum, Romney's main opponent in the Michigan primary, that they drove by the Balmoral Drive property during its demolition. They bemoaned the destruction of the link between the would-be president and the community that raised him.

 "Romney hasn’t lived here for so long, I just don’t think the average person thinks he’s a Michigan guy," Barb said.

Slideshow: Mitt Romney

Story: Romney begins closing arguements in Michigan

Paul Sancya / AP

The former home of one of Michigan's most prominent political families lies in debris after being demolished in Detroit Tuesday, June 8, 2010. Crews demolished, as part of Detroit's plan to tear down neighborhood eyesores and dangerous houses, the 5,500-square-foot, two-story structure where George Romney raised his family for a time before being elected governor. Former Massachusetts governor and one-time Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was raised in the home in the once prestigious Palmer Woods area.