Supreme Court upholds the Individual Mandate…but enforces Commerce Clause limits
The Supreme Court this morning upheld the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, in a decision that declared, 5-4, that the Mandate does violate the Commerce Clause, but is still constitutional because it is a kind of tax. This last argument recevied relatively little attention in the past year, and was not addressed at all during the oral argument, if memory serves. But the Court ruled that citizens can be forced to pay taxes, and that taxes can take the form of requiring people to buy insurance instead of paying the government directly. More on that issue in a bit.
Although the Court upholds the Mandate’s constitutionality in the end, it declared that the Mandate exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, which is a major victory for defenders of limited government. The question of whether the power to “regulate commerce” includes the power to force you to buy a product or service is an extremely important matter; if Congress had such power, it would indeed be the case that the federal government could force people to buy products or services that politicians think they ought to have. Chief Justice Roberts, in his separate opinion, declares the Mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause–a point on which the four dissenters agree. It is therefore the majority opinion of the Court that the Mandate violates the Commerce Clause.
The Court does, however, find that the Mandate “merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.” But this does not mean that Congress has limitless power under the Taxing Clause, the justices say, because a tax that is too “penalizing” will “lose its character as [a tax] and become a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.” This is not the case here, the Court says, because
“Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.”
More to come.
What to read next
Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court endured the partisan gauntlet of the Senate hearing on his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing only confirmed what has been known for some time: Justice Willett will serve the federal judiciary with integrity, wit, and commitment.
Earlier this year, the City of Seattle shocked the people of Washington—indeed, many across the nation—when it decided to impose an income tax on so-called “high-earners” in direct defiance of the Washington State Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that the state constitution’s uniformity clause prohibits targeted income taxes.
PLF and several allied organizations submitted a petition for rule-making to the federal agencies that administer the Endangered Species Act. The petition asks the agencies to define “species” and “subspecies,” terms which, although critical to the Act’s operation, are left undefined by statute and regulation.
Next Friday, I’ll be presenting oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould. The case involves a challenge to the ALRB’s access regulation, which allows union organizers to use the private property of agricultural employers to solicit potential union members.