Articles Discussing Case:
Phelps Dunbar LLP • July 03, 2012
On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, a consolidation of three cases challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called “heath care reform” or the “ACA.” The three cases, one of which was filed by 26 state Attorneys General, challenged, among other provisions of the ACA, the individual mandate. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held the mandate constitutional.
Franczek Radelet P.C • June 29, 2012
Today, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the “individual mandate”—the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or else pay a tax—on the basis that the mandate is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to tax. In its opinion, the Court stated that “[o]ur precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the [individual mandate] under the taxing power, and that [the individual mandate] need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.”
FordHarrison LLP • June 29, 2012
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as a valid tax, imposed within Congress' taxing power. See Nat'l Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (No. 11-393, June 28, 2012). The Court held that the individual mandate (which requires most Americans to purchase insurance or face an IRS tax) is not a penalty because the only consequence of not complying with the mandate is the requirement to pay the tax. Although the Court also held that Congress exceeded the power granted to it under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the individual mandate, the provision is nevertheless valid under Congress' taxing authority. The Court also held that the Anti-Injunction Act does not preclude the Court from ruling on the issue because the PPACA does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion.
Fisher Phillips • June 29, 2012
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). In what is easily the most significant decision this term, and arguably one of the most important rulings in decades, the Supreme Court upheld the so-called "individual mandate" and all of the provisions of ACA that impact employers. NFIB v. Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Ogletree Deakins • June 29, 2012
On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion deciding the constitutionality of the federal health care overhaul known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court upheld the entire Act except a provision related to expanding eligibility for Medicaid. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, construed the individual mandate as an option to have “minimum essential coverage” or to pay a tax and upheld the provision on the basis that the Act merely uses a tax penalty as a means of incentivizing an individual to have minimum essential coverage. The Court also held that the Medicaid expansion provision, although unconstitutional, can be severed so that the remainder of the Act can stand despite the unconstitutionality of one portion. Florida, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Nos. 11-393, 11-398, and 11-400, U.S. Supreme Court (June 28, 2012).
Ogletree Deakins • June 29, 2012
I have not and will probably not read today's Supreme Court decision holding that the Affordable Care Act is (for the most part) constitutional any time soon.