Oral arguments would probably be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become the topic of a hot-button political debate in a presidential election year.
The announcement, made in a brief, was expected as several legal challenges have worked their way through the appeals process.
So now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, what does it mean? And what could the political and legal implications be?
One of the key issues to be considered by the high court's nine justices is whether the "individual mandate" section of the law - requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties - is an improper exercise of federal authority. Various states have argued that if that linchpin provision is found unconstitutional, the entire law will have to be scrapped.
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that while the challenge is a fairly straightforward legal question, the implications, especially the political ones, are huge.
"The federal government has to abide by the Constitution," Toobin said. "And the Constitution says that the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce."
Under that umbrella fall Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - some of the issues at the heart of Obama's health care plan, he said.
"The Obama administration says his health care plan is simply a reflection of the way the federal government has been involved in health care for many, many years," Toobin explained.
But many states that have filed the challenges say that Obama's plan is too far-reaching.
"Many states have challenged this and said, 'This is different because it requires individuals to buy a private product, that is health insurance,' and that is something [they feel] the federal government simply does not have the authority to do," Toobin said.
He said the issue has divided courts during the challenges to the health care law, but more courts have upheld it than have struck it down.
"But I think it's likely to be a close question in the Supreme Court, and it is certainly the most important case that the court has had since Bush v. Gore 11 years ago," Toobin said.
And it's also a ruling that could play a part in the 2012 election, he added.
"If the law is struck down, if the central achievement of President Obama's domestic policy is struck down, I think that would be very, very bad for him; the idea that he spent all this time on something that was unconstitutional," Toobin said. "If he wins, I think it's a benefit. Gratification by a basically conservative Supreme Court, I think, will be seen as a victory for him and will likely give him some momentum heading into the convention. But I think we really have to see."
CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin said the White House feels confident about the challenge, given that three out of four circuit courts have ruled in favor of the law's constitutionality, including rulings coming from "some highly conservative judges."
Yellin said the issue's importance may increase, depending on who Obama faces in the race for president. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, an overturning of the law may not be as bad, because Romney supported an individual mandate in his state.
However, either way, an overturning of the law would not be seen in the best light for Obama as he asks the country to elect him for a second term.
"This was what he lobbied for more than anything else, and if it's overturned by the Supreme Court, it is not a happy day for the campaign or for the president." Yellin said. "That said, they don't expect it to be [overturned.]"