ACA Lit. Case Study Flashcards Preview

Con Law Fordham > ACA Lit. Case Study > Flashcards

Flashcards in ACA Lit. Case Study Deck (4):

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) (J. Roberts) Individual Mandate N&P?

Mandate is not essential to Congress’s power to regulate other aspects of health care

Not consistent w/ enumerated powers, distinguished from Raich, which had commerce clause


Sebelius (2012) (Roberts)
Individual Mandate Commerce Power

can’t force someone to engage in commerce

Gov’t argues that this address cost-shifting problem – failure of some people to purchase health insurance has substantial effect on interstate commerce by raising insurance costs for those who do have it

Court rejects this: compels people to act, compels people not participating in commerce to start participating


Sebelius (2012) (Roberts)
Individual Mandate Tax power

Drexel’s 3-element test – (1) tax imposed burden; (2) punitive or incentive; (3) who administers?

tax is cheaper than purchasing insurance so not coercive or penalty, just incentive; administered by IRS


Sebelius Medicaid expansion provision

Holding: Unconstitutional b/c unduly coercive, but severable

Spending power analysis: Congress can require conditions for states to meet to get federal $, BUT can’t commandeer the states or be unduly coercive (10th amendment)
This is “gun to the head” of states.