National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress may not use its Commerce Clause power to compel individuals to engage in commercial activity, but it may use its Taxing Power to impose a financial exaction on those who choose not to purchase health insurance. Additionally, Congress violates the Spending Clause when it coerces states into accepting new program conditions by threatening the loss of all funding for a large, pre-existing program.
Facts:
- In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) to increase health insurance coverage and decrease healthcare costs.
- The ACA's 'individual mandate' requires most Americans to maintain 'minimum essential' health insurance coverage.
- Individuals who do not comply with the mandate must make a 'shared responsibility payment,' described in the statute as a 'penalty,' to the IRS with their income tax returns.
- The ACA also contains 'guaranteed-issue' and 'community-rating' provisions, which prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to individuals with pre-existing conditions.
- A separate provision, the 'Medicaid expansion,' requires states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
- The federal government would fund 100% of the expansion's cost initially, phasing down to 90% over time.
- The Act provides that if a state fails to comply with the new Medicaid expansion requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may withhold all of the state's federal Medicaid funds, including funds for the long-standing, pre-expansion program.
Procedural Posture:
- Florida, 25 other states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals filed suit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ACA's individual mandate and Medicaid expansion were unconstitutional.
- The District Court held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and, because it was not severable, struck down the entire ACA.
- The federal government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but held that it was severable from the rest of the ACA. The court also held that the Medicaid expansion was a valid exercise of Congress's Spending Clause power.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eleventh Circuit's judgment on both the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Affordable Care Act's requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a 'penalty' exceed Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause or Taxing Clause? And does the Act's provision that conditions all of a state's existing Medicaid funding on its acceptance of an expanded Medicaid program unconstitutionally coerce the states?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Regarding the individual mandate: No, under the Commerce Clause; Yes, under the Taxing Clause. The mandate cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause because Congress's power to regulate commerce presupposes existing commercial activity; it does not grant Congress the power to compel individuals to enter a market. However, the mandate can be sustained as a constitutional exercise of the Taxing Power. Although labeled a 'penalty,' the shared responsibility payment functions as a tax because it is paid to the IRS, is based on income, and raises revenue. Under the principle of constitutional avoidance, the Court must adopt this 'fairly possible' interpretation that saves the statute. Regarding the Medicaid expansion: Yes, the provision is unconstitutionally coercive. Threatening states with the complete loss of existing Medicaid funds—which can constitute over 10% of a state's total budget—is not merely a financial inducement but a 'gun to the head' that leaves states with no genuine choice but to acquiesce. This crosses the line from permissible encouragement to unconstitutional coercion. The remedy is not to invalidate the expansion, but to render the coercive threat unenforceable, thereby making state participation in the expansion truly optional.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Ginsburg
Regarding the individual mandate: No, the mandate does not exceed Congress's powers. I agree with the Chief Justice that the mandate is a valid tax, but it is also a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. The uninsured, as a class, have a substantial effect on the interstate healthcare market by shifting the costs of their uncompensated care to others. The mandate is an essential part of the ACA's broader economic regulation of health insurance and is therefore a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. Regarding the Medicaid expansion: No, the provision is not coercive. It is a permissible amendment to a long-standing cooperative spending program. Congress expressly reserved the right to amend Medicaid, and states were on notice that the program's terms could change. Withholding future funds for noncompliance with new conditions is a standard and constitutional feature of Spending Clause legislation, not a threat to terminate a separate, independent grant.
Dissenting - Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito
Regarding the individual mandate: Yes, the mandate exceeds Congress's powers. The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to compel individuals to enter a market. The provision cannot be saved as a tax because Congress deliberately framed it as a 'penalty' for violating a legal 'requirement.' Rewriting the statute to call it a tax constitutes judicial overreach and subverts the legislative process. Regarding the Medicaid expansion: Yes, the provision is unconstitutionally coercive. The threat of losing all Medicaid funding effectively removes any choice for the states, violating principles of federalism. Furthermore, because the mandate and Medicaid expansion are central and inseverable pillars of the ACA, their unconstitutionality requires the entire Act to be struck down.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
I agree with the joint dissent's conclusions but write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's 'substantial effects' test for the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress's powers. The government's argument that it can regulate inactivity is a direct result of the Court’s overly expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence, which should be abandoned.
Analysis:
This landmark decision reshaped the understanding of Congress's major enumerated powers. By creating a distinction between regulating 'activity' and compelling 'inactivity,' the Court placed a significant new limit on the Commerce Clause, potentially restricting future federal mandates. However, the decision simultaneously affirmed a broad interpretation of the Taxing Power as a tool to influence individual behavior, providing Congress with a powerful alternative route for regulatory action. The holding on the Medicaid expansion established a new, albeit ill-defined, 'coercion' limit on the Spending Clause, protecting states from threats to withdraw funding for massive, pre-existing programs. The case represents a pivotal moment in American federalism, both constraining and empowering Congress in ways that will influence legislation for decades.
