The stakes for health care in Trump's next SCOTUS pick own logic in his ruling for Obamacare to justify overturning the law now. The health care legislation proposed by Senate Republicans is a moral uphold the Affordable Care Act. But his decision in the case NFIB v. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. , was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Briefing and oral argument · Other opinions · Reaction and commentary.
|Published:||2 January 2015|
|PDF File Size:||44.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||25.88 Mb|
But the government still won, because a different set of five Justices — the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but for a different reason. In his view, the mandate creates commerce, rather than regulating it.
If the Court were to interpret the Commerce Clause the way that the government does, he contended, it would allow Congress to regulate all kinds scotus health care decision new things — including forcing people to buy vegetables with no specific reference to broccoli, however.
He acknowledged that the mandate and its accompanying penalty is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax.
At issue is a provision in the health-care law that would require the states to provide Medicaid coverage for virtually all poor Americans under the age of sixty-five — a significant expansion of what the federal government currently requires — or risk losing all of the Medicaid funding that they get scotus health care decision the feds.
Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act
The Court acknowledged that Congress can put scotus health care decision on the money that it gives to the states. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command.
Editor's Note :
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax. Those without insurance consume billions of dollars of health-care products and services each year.
Those goods are produced, sold, and delivered largely by national and regional companies who routinely transact business across state lines. The uninsured also cross state lines to receive care.
Further, joined only by Sotomayor, she dissented on striking down the Medicaid expansion penalty, arguing scotus health care decision it was within Congress's power under the Spending Clause: This gets things backwards: Congress, not the States, is tasked with spending federal money in service of the general welfare.
And each successive Scotus health care decision is empowered to appropriate funds as it sees fit.
Today's health-care decision: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog
When the th Congress reached a conclusion about Medicaid funds that differed from its predecessors' view, it abridged no State's right to "existing", or "pre-existing", funds For, in fact, there are no such funds.
There scotus health care decision only money States anticipate receiving from future Congresses. Ginsburg's dissent went on to highlight the implications of the majority's finding that the federal government's threat of taking away existing funding from states unwilling to implement Medicaid expansion left states with no "legitimate choice".
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Wikipedia
- Health Care Archives - SCOTUSblog
When future Spending Clause challenges arrive, as they likely will in the wake of today's decision, how will litigants and judges assess whether scotus health care decision State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds"?
Are courts to measure the number of dollars the Federal Government might withhold for noncompliance?
The portion of the State's budget at stake? And which State's—or States'—budget is determinative: But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.
Secretary of State, U.
United States, U. In this case, there is simply no way, "without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used", Grenada County Supervisors v.
Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act
The dissent also disputed Justice Ginsburg's claim that the court's opinion failed "to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order": Thus the dissent, on the theories proposed for the scotus health care decision of the Mandate, would alter the accepted constitutional relation between the individual and the National Government.
The dissent protests that the Necessary and Proper Clause has been held to include "the power to enact criminal laws, Is not the power to compel scotus health care decision of health insurance much lesser? No, not if unlike those other dispositions its application rests upon a theory that everything is within federal control simply because it exists.