About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

89 Denver L. Rev. F. 1 (2012)

handle is hein.journals/dnvrlwfv89 and id is 1 raw text is: 89 DENV. U. L. REV. ONLINE 1 July 9, 2012 PART I: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ETAL. V. SEBELIUS: A SUMMARY OF THE RECENT HEALTHCARE DECISION NICOLE TACHIBANA1 All eyes were on the Supreme Court this summer as the Court pre- pared to decide an important decision during a contentious election year. The case was National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, and it decided the constitutionality of the 2010 Patient Protec- tion and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).2 PPACA was challenged as un- constitutional by twenty-six states. The Court's majority opinion, deliv- ered by Chief Justice John Roberts, focused on two key parts of the Act: the individual mandate and the Medicare expansion. Below is a summary of the majority opinion. A. PPACA'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BUT IS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER CONGRESS'S TAXING POWER. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts started by reiterating the mission of the Court: to simply decide whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions. He discussed the Court's limited role of policing the boundaries while not considering whether the Act has sound policies. He stated that the Court [is] vested with the authority to inter- pret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.3 It is the sole responsibility of the Court to enforce the limits of federal power to those defined and enumerated within the Constitution and to strike down those acts that transgress those limits.4 First, Roberts examined whether the Court had standing to hear the case. Under the Anti-Injunction Act,5 suits that try to restrain the assess- ment or collection of any tax are barred. To prevent disruption to the stream of revenue, the Anti-Injunction Act requires that individuals first pay the tax and then challenge the tax for a refund. Congress, how- 1. J.D. 2012, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. This is the first part in a multi- part series on the healthcare decision. This part focuses on the majority opinion. The next part will focus on the concurring and dissenting opinions. 2. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A (the section at issue is the so-called individual mandate.). 3. Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. et al. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. __,*6 (2012). 4. Id. at *6. 5. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a) provides, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person. 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most