Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court on the challenge by 26 states and others to the 2010 health care law. Here are edited excerpts from Roberts' opinion:
Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage; and the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold. We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions. …
In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government's power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries. …
The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress's power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax. …
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and -- under the Government's theory -- empower Congress to make those decisions for him. …
To consider a different example in the health care market, many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. … The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. … Those increased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured. … Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government's theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables. People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures -- joined with the similar failures of others -- can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. …
Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. …
The Government regards it as sufficient to trigger Congress's authority that almost all those who are uninsured will, at some unknown point in the future, engage in a health care transaction. … Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. …
Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress's use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. … The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. …
The States also contend that the Medicaid expansion exceeds Congress's authority under the Spending Clause. They claim that Congress is coercing the States to adopt the changes it wants by threatening to withhold all of a State's Medicaid grants. …
In this case, the financial "inducement" Congress has chosen is much more than "relatively mild encouragement" -- it is a gun to the head. Section 1396c of the Medicaid Act provides that if a State's Medicaid plan does not comply with the Act's requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may declare that "further payments will not be made to the State." A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act's expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely "a relatively small percentage" of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it. …
There is no doubt that the Act dramatically increases state obligations under Medicaid. The current Medicaid program requires States to cover only certain discrete categories of needy individuals -- pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled. There is no mandatory coverage for most childless adults, and the States typically do not offer any such coverage. The States also enjoy considerable flexibility with respect to the coverage levels for parents of needy families. On average States cover only those unemployed parents who make less than 37 percent of the federal poverty level, and only those employed parents who make less than 63 percent of the poverty line. …
The Medicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act, in contrast, require States to expand their Medicaid programs by 2014 to cover all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line. The Act also establishes a "[e]ssential health benefits" package, which States must provide to all new Medicaid recipients -- a level sufficient to satisfy a recipient's obligations under the individual mandate. The Affordable Care Act provides that the Federal Government will pay 100 percent of the costs of covering these newly eligible individuals through 2016. In the following years, the federal payment level gradually decreases, to a minimum of 90 percent. …
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. …
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority with the Affordable Care Act. Ted Ruger, constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, speaks to Scott Pelley about the significance of the ruling
Obama health care law ruling: What it means
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals to uphold President Obama's health care. Jan Crawford explains his ruling, calling it an "unusual alliance."
Supreme Court ruling "unusual alliance of justices"
Read the latest political news.
- Justices Uphold Individual Mandate, Set Limits On Medicaid Expansion
- Court's Dissenters Argue That 'Entire Statute Is Inoperative'
- Health Law Decision A 'Victory For People All Over This Country'
- Justice Roberts Says Law's Offer to States on Medicaid 'Is A Gun to the Head'
- Romney: Health Law Bad Policy, No Matter SCOTUS Decision
- The Tea Party Shtick
- How Wall Street is Trying to Avoid Oversight
- The Robin Hood Tax
- Growing Independence from Both Parties
- Are the Democrats Doomed?
- Mitt Romney: Running for Magician-in-Chief
- Mitt Romney is Dangerously Naive on Foreign Policy
- Is Marco Rubio the Hope of the GOP?
- Progressive Morality
- Running Against a Ghost
- Candidates Must Steer Clear of Political Potholes
- Obama Shows that Political Gaffes are a Game Two Can Play
- Candidates Woo Skeptical, and Possibly Decisive, Latino Bloc
- From Hope and Change to Fear and Smear
- Obama's DREAM Gambit
- The Limits of Compassion in Politics
- All Hail Emperor Obama
- Drone Warfare Foretells an Ever-Expanding and Illegal War
- Sending in the Drones
- Realists Play Video Games
- Women Candidates Need to Fight Back Against Innuendo
- Obama's Truthiness
- Wisconsin Wakeup Call
- Hard Times, Weak Unions
- Wisconsin Vote Dashes Union Hopes, An Entire Movement's Gains
- Wisconsin: Labor's Love Lost
- Liberal Nostalgia for The Good Old Days of Conservatism
- The Big Lie Coup D'etat
- Super PAC Era Links Back to Early James Burnham
- Recalling the Gilded Age
- A Fair Shot
- Low-Wage Nation
- Supreme Doubts
- Obama's 'Fine' Mess
- Making the World Safer for the Next Bernie Madoff
- 'Compromise' is Not a Dirty Word
- Googling Anti-Obama Racism
- Who are You Calling 'Extreme'?
- Is the Worm Turning?
- Searching for a Surrogate
- The Essentiality of Journalism
- Our Press Freedom is Under Fire
- Of Bedrooms and Boardrooms
- Budget Cut Blues: America Needs More Informed Citizenry
- Pentagon Spending Spree
- Why the 'Pro-Growth Centrists' are Wrong
- Social Security's Dual-Income Trap
Justice Roberts Says Law's Offer to States on Medicaid 'Is A Gun to the Head' | Politics
Copyright © 2012 AHN - All Rights Reserved