| National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 26–28, 2012 Decided June 28, 2012 | |
| Full case name | National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 11-393 11-398 11-400 |
| Citations | 567 U.S. 519 (more) 132 S. Ct. 2566; 183 L. Ed. 2d 450; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4876; 80 U.S.L.W. 4579; 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,423; 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2563; 53 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1513; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 480 |
| Argument | |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Act declared unconstitutional sub. nom. Florida ex rel. Bondi v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (N.D. Fla. 2011); affirmed and reversed in parts, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1033 (2011), 565 U.S. 1034 (2011). |
| Holding | |
| (1) The Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act.
(2) The individual mandate provision of the ACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. (3) Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may withhold from states refusing to comply with the ACA's Medicaid expansion provision only the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the ACA.[1] Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts (Parts I, II, and III–C), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Plurality | Roberts (Part IV), joined by Breyer, Kagan |
| Plurality | Roberts (Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D) |
| Concur/dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; Breyer, Kagan (Parts I, II, III, and IV) |
| Dissent | Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I; 124 Stat. 119–1025 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), Anti-Injunction Act | |
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark[2][3][4] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare,[5][6] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014.[7][8] The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5–4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power).
A majority of the justices, including Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, although they did not join in a single opinion.
A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
- ^ Note: Some scholars question whether this part constitutes a holding. See #Opinions on Medicaid expansion
- ^ Matt Negrin and Ariane De Vogue (June 28, 2012). "Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: The Mandate Can Stay". ABC News. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- ^ Pickert, Kate (June 28, 2012). "Supreme Court Upholds Health Reform Law in Landmark Decision". Time Swampland. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (September 30, 2012). "Supreme Court justices face important rulings in upcoming term September". The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
- ^ Wallace, Gregory (June 25, 2012). "'Obamacare': The word that defined the health care debate". CNN. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
- ^ Holan, Angie D. (March 20, 2012). "RomneyCare & ObamaCare: Can you tell the difference?". PolitiFact.com. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved August 29, 2012.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2012). "Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama". The New York Times. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
- ^ Barnes, Robert (June 28, 2012). "Supreme Court upholds Obama's health-care law". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 29, 2012.