• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Supreme Court Takes Up Obamacare

    The Supreme Court today granted review in related cases that raise the question whether Congress had the power to adopt the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – known colloquially as ObamaCare – health regulatory scheme and, if not, what components of that law must fall and can survive.

    The Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari in three separate cases – one filed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (No. 11-393), one filed by the states No. 11-400), and one filed by the federal government (No. 11-398).  The specific questions that the Court has decided to review are listed below.  In sum, the Court will decide two questions: (1) whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce or Spending Clauses of the Constitution to adopt ObamaCare, and (2) whether the federal Tax Injunction Act bars suits by private parties or the states to challenge ObamaCare as being unconstitutional.  The Court decided not to consider the states’ argument that, as applied to state employees, ObamaCare violated the Tenth Amendment.

    It is a bit unclear from its orders today, but the Court also set aside either 4 ½ or 5 ½ hours for oral argument, which is surprising even for those who thought the Court would likely double the normal time from one to two hours, which the Court does about once or twice a year.

    The questions that the Court has decided to review should allow the Court to resolve the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  The time that the Court has set aside for oral argument is an unheard of amount of time these days.  The Court likely will hear oral argument in March, which would allow the Court 3-4 months to decide the case.

    Ironically, the Court also may have had its own “Oops!” moment this morning.  The Court twice noted that it granted the states’ certiorari petition, each time saying that review was granted to only one question, but disagreeing as to what question that is.  One time the Court said that the grant was limited to Question 1, while the second notation said that the grant was limited to Question 3.  Questions 1 and 3 are different.  Let’s hope the Court takes its time from here on and decides the issues the way the Constitution requires.

    Here are the precise questions accepted or added by the Court for consideration early next year:

    • Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) v. Florida, No. 11-398:  “Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.”  The Court set aside two hours for oral argument on that question.  The Court also directed the parties to brief and argue this additional question:  “Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.”  The Court set aside one additional hour for that additional question.
    • National Fed’n of Indep. Businesses v. HHS, No. 11-393 & Florida v. HHS, No. 11-400: From NFIB’s petition:   “Whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’ limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.”  From the states’ petition: “Does the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress’s enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?”  The Court consolidated the two cases and set aside 90 additional minutes for argument.
    • Florida v. HHS, No. 11-400:  In a separate grant, the Court also review limited to this question (Question 1):  “Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress’s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), no longer apply?” The Court did not indicate whether there is a separate hour of argument for that issue or whether it will be argued with the other issues.  The order here also appears in tension with the other order addressing case No. 11-400, which limited the grant to a different question.
    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Supreme Court Takes Up Obamacare

    1. Mike says:

      The third branch of the fed govt is the only good reason remaining to keep a federal govt. If the court fails on this then federalism must be dfunded and written off as a failure at the hands of libs. States can do the governing and the common defense can be handled via treaty as we now conduct with Canada. Debt slavery is not an option for my grand children is it for yours?

    2. Ferd says:

      Are you proposing secession, Mike? The dissolution of the United States?

      • Bobbie says:

        proposing? it's forced consideration when the control of government is used to become dangerous to the people!

    3. robin says:

      Guess we will see how ethical E. Kagan is when it comes time for her to decide whether to participate in or recuse herself. It is no secret that she helped to construct some of the policies incorporated in this mega bill and that she was a huge supporter of its passage – regardless of the dirty tricks used to get it passed – against the will of the American people. My guess is that she will be as biased and unethical as was the congress that passed this atrocious bill. Considering who nominated her for the Supreme Court and considering her previous work history as a liberal professor, I suspect that she won't let ethics get in her way of promoting her personal prejudices and desires. Even though it is her job to be honest and unbiased and to rule based on the Constitution – which I am not sure she has really read in its entirety with the intent of our founding Fathers in mind, I fear she will exercise her dubious right to judge the issues related to Obamacare. I don't see her doing the right thing.

    4. Jack Penland says:

      Both Kagan and Sotomayor are part of Obama and his liberal fellow travelers "legacy". I guess these two creatures of the extreme left are our Comrade-in-Chief's idea of a good joke. Kind of gives a new twist to the phrase "red herring", doesn't it?

    5. Hollidais says:

      Honestly, I do not see how there is any question that mandates such as are contained in Obamacare are illegal. I don't even know why it is said to hinge on the commerce clause when clearly it violates our creator-endowed unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Decl. of Independce). See Constitutional Amendment #9, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Have I got this wrong?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×