Gotta question on this, maybe for DAT:
What happens when multiple federal judges make a ruling on individual cases with the same basic theme, i.e., Obamacare, and they, in essence, differ with each other? Does each case individually wind its way through the court system, appellate, etc., just to ultimately wind up - maybe - with SCOTUS?
Is each case reviewed on its own merits, then another judgment is pronounced relative to that case?
How can a lower-court judge determine the constitutionality of a given law - let's say Obamacare in this instance - vice another judge from another district?
Do pissing matches ensue between these guys (unseen to the rest of us mortals, of course)?
Okay, I guess it was more than one question..... 
'Resolving a difference in the Circuits' is one of the classic jurisdictional provinces of the Supreme Court, though it does not HAVE to take the case, nor is it the exclusive way this question would get there. As far as there being a difference in the Circuits goes, though, there are a surprisingly wide number of situations where Federal agencies have to apply law one way in one State, and differently in another one, due to the States being in different Federal Circuits with different governing rulings on some fine point of evidence law, what exactly certain environmental law regulations mean, etc.
Basically, the cases start out in separate Circuits (And so necessarily different Districts, into which each Circuit is divided). In each Circuit, it begins with an initial decision by a District Judge; one or both parties willl be unhappy and appeal it, which ultimately generates a Circuit Court (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, to be more precise) decision and opinion. When two different Circuits end up issuing conflicting opinions on the same point, it's a given that someone involved will try to get the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
certiorari (Meaning that they accept the case for decision) to resolve the discrepancy. It is optional for the Court to accept these cases, it depends on how serious they think the effect would be.
I am not really following the litigation on these cases, and don't know if a fundamental conflict with the pro-HellCare decision has irrevocably been raised yet.
