The Medicaid holding—also a victory for constitutional principle
In addition to holding the Individual Mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (but upholding it as a tax), the Supreme Court also invalidated vital portions of the Medicaid expansion requirements. Obamacare forces states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, on pain of losing all their Medicaid funding. The problem with that is that Congress may not force states to do things—it can pay them in exchange for them doing things, but cannot force them. And the Court has warned that there may be times when the amount of money involved, or the threat of losing that money, is so significant that it transforms a purportedly “voluntary” act into an unconstitutional compulsion.
The Court today struck down the portions of the Medicaid expansion that it found to be too much like compulsion. It ruled that the Secretary of Health & Human Services does not have the power to withhold all of a state’s Medicaid funding if the state refuses to comply. To allow such power would be “beyond” the limits of federal power and would “conscript state [agencies] into the national bureaucratic army.” That part of the opinion is endorsed by Chief Justice Roberts, as well Justices Kagan and Breyer, and the same argument is endorsed by the four dissenters. Roberts goes on, however, to uphold the rest of the Medicaid provisions, which the dissenters, of course, do not.
In other words, on the broader principle of whether the Medicaid provisions unconstitutionally expand federal power at the expense of the states, the Court ruled in favor of limited government and struck down the offending provisions, and endorsed—seven to two, by my count—limits on the Spending Clause power.
What to read next
A trial court in Marin County, California, handed down a tentative ruling in Cherk v. County of Marin, rejecting the Cherk family’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the County to force them to pay $40,000 into an “affordable housing” fund.
Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…
When the Cherk family applied for a permit to split their large residential parcel into two lots, the County of Marin demanded they pay $40,000 into the County’s “affordable housing” fund as a condition of the permit. The Cherks objected, but got nowhere with County officials and ultimately paid the fee under protest.
One of the most contentious federal regulations published in recent decades is the ill-fated and ill-legitimate “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule that was issued by the Corps and EPA over the objections of Corps experts who argued the EPA misrepresented the science and misapplied the law.