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
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.