WASHINGTON -- The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.
The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the majority.
The decision in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services comes as something of a surprise after the generally hostile reception the law received during the six hours of oral arguments held over three days in March. But by siding with the court's four Democratic appointees, Chief Justice Roberts avoided the delegitimizing taint of politics that surrounds a party-line vote while passing Obamacare's fate back to the elected branches. GOP candidates and incumbents will surely spend the rest of the 2012 campaign season running against the Supreme Court and for repeal of the law.
The decision looks like a political compromise among the justices, letting the mandate stand without wading into the contentious question of whether the provision is a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The majority concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress' power under the Constitution to "lay and collect taxes."
HOBBITS
Luckily, yesterday, we were aproved for nj family care and after two years of not having health insurance we finally have it again. It's such a relief.
Edited at 2012-06-28 02:37 pm (UTC)
i LOVE new york gifs - they are the best. her cackling.
So pleased and surprised it was upheld.
Okay, didn't mean to be a downer in a happy post, but I was really counting on the Medicaid expansion.
Edited at 2012-06-28 02:40 pm (UTC)
This has made my morning.
I was so worried that it would be totally struck down.
Edited at 2012-06-28 03:18 pm (UTC)
(ETA the first image)
Edited at 2012-06-28 02:42 pm (UTC)
Good job, CNN. That's some stellar reporting.
Second, slapping down the Commerce Clause is just what the Court does these days, so IMO, no matter how persuasive the administration's argument were (or could have been), the individual mandate was never going to pass muster under the Commerce Clause.
The tax thing is interesting though. The SCOTUS' pronouncements are never the last word on anything. In fact, more often than not, they're just a speed bump for Congress. It's the court job to either confirm or pooh-pooh current legal/legislative trends, basically. So at most, the decision gives the administration and Congress an idea of what they should be doing.
So I wonder if the decision is a signal to Congress to tweak the law to allow for (additional) exemptions and/or deductions when you file your tax return, so effectively, the mandate would be a toothless part of the law.
Also, yay!!! \o/
Reports are still coming in, and the ruling is reportedly rather complicated, but it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts unexpectedly sided with the center-left justices, upheld the individual mandate, and the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court majority.
The key, at this point, is that the court majority appears to have upheld the mandate as a tax. For more on what that means, check out Ezra's item from this morning.
I'll update this post very soon.
Update #1: By way of SCOTUS Blog, the court majority focused not on the Commerce Clause, but on Congress' taxing authority. From the majority on the mandate: "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."
Update #2: The ruling as it relates to the mandate was 5 to 4, with Roberts joining Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Update #3: The ruling on Medicaid expansion is proving to be more interesting than expected. From SCOTUS Blog's Lyle Denniston: "The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): 'Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA 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.' (p. 55)"
Update #4: The breakdown on the mandate ruling is a little tricky. There are five justices (see #2) who upheld the mandate on tax grounds, but not on Commerce Clause grounds. The four center-left justices agreed that the mandate is permissible under both parts of the law, but Roberts disagreed on the Commerce Clause. The practical effect remains the same: the mandate is legal.
Update #5: Justice Kennedy, thought to be a possible swing vote, says in his dissent that he wanted to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. Something to think about next time someone calls him a "moderate."
Update #6: Here's the text of the ruling (pdf).
Update #7: That sound you hear is Solicitor General Don Verrilli making the loudest exhale in the history of humanity. (Verrilli, you'll recall, didn't have a good day in March.)
Edited at 2012-06-28 03:05 pm (UTC)
But I hope this is good for Obama's chances in November. The thought of a Romney administration getting to appoint justices scares the crap out of me.