National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450, 109 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-2563, 80 USLW 4579... KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Holdings: The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts, Superseded by Statute as Stated in Texas v. United States, N.D.Tex., held that: December 14, 2018 132 S.Ct. 2566 [1] Anti–Injunction Act did not bar pre-enforcement suit, Supreme Court of the United States abrogating Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 671 F.3d 391; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF [2] individual mandate, imposing minimum essential INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al., Petitioners, coverage requirement under which certain individuals v. must purchase and maintain health insurance coverage, Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary of Health and exceeded Congress’s power under Commerce Clause, Human Services, et al. abrogating Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d Department of Health and Human Services, et al., 529, and Seven–Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1; Petitioners, v. [3] the individual mandate was a “tax” that was within Florida, et al. Congress’s taxing powers; Florida, et al., Petitioners, v. [4] statutory provision giving Secretary of Health and Department of Health and Human Services et al. Human Services (HHS) the authority to penalize States that chose not to participate in Act’s expansion of Nos. 11–393, 11–398, 11–400. Medicaid program exceeded Congress’s power under the | Spending Clause; and Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012. | [5] the penalization provision was severable. Decided June 28, 2012. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Synopsis Background: Twenty-six states, as well as private Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, individuals and organization of independent businesses, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, brought action against federal Health and Human Services in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justices (HHS), Treasury, and Labor Departments and their Breyer and Kagan joined in part. Secretaries, challenging constitutionality of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito filed a United States District Court for the Northern District of dissenting opinion. Florida, No. 3:10–CV–00091–RV–EMT, Roger Vinson, Senior District Judge, 780 F.Supp.2d 1256, granted Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. summary judgment to defendants on state plaintiffs’ claim that Act’s expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional, concluded that Act’s individual mandate provision exceeded congressional authority and was not severable, and declared entire Act invalid. The District Court further West Headnotes (37) clarified its order and entered a stay pending appeal, 780 F.Supp.2d 1307. Defendants appealed, and state plaintiffs [1] cross-appealed as to Medicaid expansion. The United States States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Dubina, Powers Reserved to States Chief Judge, and Hull, Circuit Judge, 648 F.3d 1235, affirmed as to unconstitutionality of individual mandate, In our federal system, the National Government reversed determination of nonseverability, and affirmed possesses only limited powers; the States and as to constitutionality of Medicaid expansion. Certiorari the people retain the remainder. was granted. 18 Cases that cite this headnote © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450, 109 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-2563, 80 USLW 4579... the Constitution. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Constitutional Law United States Constitution The Federal Government is acknowledged by all [6] to be one of enumerated powers, that is, rather Constitutional Law than granting general authority to perform all the Application to states conceivable functions of government, the States Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Police power Government’s powers. The Federal Constitution may restrict state governments, but where such prohibitions do not 9 Cases that cite this headnote apply, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act, and the States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government, such as punishing street crime, running public schools, [3] Constitutional Law and zoning property for development, even United States Constitution though the Constitution’s text does not authorize any government to do so. The Constitution’s enumeration of powers for the Federal Government is also a limitation of powers, because the enumeration presupposes 7 Cases that cite this headnote something not enumerated. 8 Cases that cite this headnote [7] States Police power The “police power” is the general power of [4] Constitutional Law governing, possessed by the States but not by United States Constitution the Federal Government. The Constitution’s express conferral of some powers for the Federal Government makes clear 7 Cases that cite this headnote that it does not grant others, and the Federal Government can exercise only the powers granted to it. [8] States 8 Cases that cite this headnote Nature, status, and sovereignty in general States Status under Constitution of United States, and relations to United States in general [5] Constitutional Law State sovereignty is not just an end in itself; United States Constitution rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to power. pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in 2 Cases that cite this headnote © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450, 109 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-2563, 80 USLW 4579... In exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified [9] States conditions; these offers may well induce the Federal laws invading state powers States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. U.S.C.A. The independent power of the States serves as a Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 1. check on the power of the Federal Government; by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, 13 Cases that cite this headnote federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [13] Constitutional Law Clearly, positively, or unmistakably unconstitutional Constitutional Law Invalidation, annulment, or repeal of statutes [10] Commerce Commerce among the states Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the Commerce government requires that the court strike down Activities affecting interstate commerce an Act of Congress only if the lack of constitutional authority to pass the act in Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may question is clearly demonstrated. regulate the channels of interstate commerce, persons or things in interstate commerce, and those activities that substantially affect interstate 14 Cases that cite this headnote commerce. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. 105 Cases that cite this headnote [14] Constitutional Law Policy Constitutional Law Encroachment on Executive [11] Internal Revenue Federal Courts Power to tax and regulate in general Jurisdiction, powers, and authority in general The Taxing Clause gives the Federal Members of the Supreme Court are vested with Government considerable influence even in the authority to interpret the law, but they areas where it cannot directly regulate, and the possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative Federal Government may enact a tax on an to make policy judgments; those decisions are activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who otherwise control. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 8, can be thrown out of office if the people cl. 1. disagree with them, and it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. 4 Cases that cite this headnote 21 Cases that cite this headnote [12] United States State and local governments and agencies © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450, 109 A.F.T.R.2d 2012-2563, 80 USLW 4579... [15] Constitutional Law Act, which bars pre-enforcement suits to restrain Policy the assessment or collection of any tax, Constitutional Law applicable to the individual mandate in the Encroachment on Executive Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which imposes a minimum essential The Supreme Court’s deference to the Nation’s coverage requirement under which certain elected leaders in matters of policy cannot individuals must purchase and maintain health become abdication in matters of law, and the insurance coverage, though the PPACA Court’s respect for Congress’s policy judgments specified that its shared responsibility payment thus can never extend so far as to disavow for not complying with the mandate shall be restraints on federal power that the Constitution assessed and collected in the same manner as an carefully constructed. assessable penalty under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); Congress chose to describe the shared responsibility payment not as a tax but as 6 Cases that cite this headnote a penalty, the PPACA described many other exactions it created as taxes, and the IRC consistently distinguished between the terms tax and assessable penalty; abrogating Liberty [16] Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 671 F.3d 391. 26 Constitutional Law U.S.C.A. §§ 5000A(b)(1), (g)(1, 2), 6201(a), Invalidation, annulment, or repeal of statutes 6671(a), 7421(a).