- June 28th, 2012, 6:16 pm
#394890
although the opinions probably wont be published until October, I will sum up from what I have read.
Edit to Add: The decision was based on Congress taxing power, Not the Commerce Clause.
Facts
1. The plaintiffs (states) argued that: (1) the individual mandate exceeded Congress' enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause; (2) the Medicaid expansions were unconstitutionally coercive; and (3) the employer mandate impermissibly interfered with state sovereignty.
Questions of Law
1. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)?
2. Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance?
3. Is the individual mandate severable from the Affordable Care Act?
4. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?
Conclusion
5 for-4 against
Analysis
1. Unanimous vote that Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act
2. majority concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority. The payment is not so severe as to be coercive, is not limited to willful violations like fines for unlawful acts, and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service by normal means.
The dissenters said that calling it a tax instead of a penalty should require rewriting the Act, that was their beef, not the actual penalty if you don't have health insurance.
3. Basically, not even voted on. majority concluded that the Individual Mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate existing commercial activity, but not to compel individuals to participate in commerce.
dissenters argued that the Chief Justice's distinction between economic "activity" and "Inactivity" is ill-defined and unsupported by either the Court's precedents or the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, even if the distinction were permissible, individuals who fail to purchase insurance nonetheless frequently participate in the healthcare marketplace, substantially impacting healthcare commerce, and may therefore be regulated by Congress.
this is known as the "substantial effects test"
4. They did not address whether it was unconstitutional....which is key. That means Congress will have more of a say. This means a lot of democrats will pay a price for this non-decision. I will put money on it.
5. 7-2 vote said that Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion.
6. Majority concluded that the remainder of the Medicaid expansion provision, without the unconstitutional threat to completely withdraw Medicaid funding, could stand as a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Dissenters argued that the Court does not have the power to remedy the unconstitutional expansion as written. Such power should be vested exclusively in Congress.
All the info I can gather right now. Can't wait to read more about the decision(s).
cjsweat wrote:Bleacherreport is a very legit source.