If the U.S. Supreme Court had followed Anthony Kennedy's lead three years ago, Obamacare's individual mandate would have been history -- and with it the president's ambitious health care reform.

But as the nation's highest tribunal is considering the federal subsidies that helped more than 7 million Americans buy health insurance, the Ronald Reagan-appointed justice may well emerge as the statute's "savior," Bloomberg Business reported.

Kennedy seemed to tip his hand during oral arguments on Wednesday when he suggested the plaintiffs' interpretation of the 2010 law could violate states' rights by forcing them to set up insurance marketplaces.

"There's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument," he told the attorney arguing against the tax credits.

By supporting the administration's view that the law provides the credits to purchasers in all 50 states, the 78-year-old may end up being the crucial fifth vote President Barack Obama's signature legislation needs to survive its second Supreme Court challenge.

While nobody can predict where Kennedy will come down on the case filed as King vs. Burwell, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to suggest that his colleague's concerns were not particularly relevant, Slate magazine noted.

Congress may well have passed legislation that turns out to be coercive in an unconstitutional manner, Scalia seemed to argue. But to acknowledge that is what happened is not the same as endorsing it, the originalist justice explained.

The questions asked by the court's liberal justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- suggest that the four will likely rule in favor of the Obama administration, the Washington Post detailed. Similarly, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas can safely be presumed to join Scalia in the conservative camp.

It all comes down to Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, the latter of which was "uncharacteristically quiet" on Wednesday.

If the court chooses to adopt Kennedy's apparent line of thought, the way the federal government has been doing business since the Great Society may well undergo some profound changes, however. That is because the coercion of state governments would be defined as automatically suspect in constitutional terms.