This essay argues that it matters for the fate of health policies challenged in court whether courts consider health merely as a policy goal that must be subordinate to law, or as a legal norm warranting legal weight and consideration. Applying population-based legal analysis, this article demonstrates that courts have traditionally treated health as a legal norm. However, this norm appears to have weakened in recent years, a trend evident in the Supreme Court's first two decisions concerning the Affordable Care Act, NFIB v. Sebelius and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. However, in its more recent Affordable Care Act decision, King v. Burwell, the health legal norm is once again evident. Whether the Court will continue to treat health as a legal norm will prove critical to the deference and weight it grants health policies in the future.