National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Linked with:
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida
- Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-393 | 11th Cir. |
Mar 28, 2012 Tr.Aud. |
Jun 28, 2012 | 5-4 | Roberts | OT 2011 |
Holding: The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” provision, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, even though the mandate has not yet gone into effect. Although the mandate is not authorized under the Commerce Clause, it is nonetheless a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Finally, the Medicaid expansion provision of the ACA violates the Constitution by threatening states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
Judgment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, 2012. The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate, and five Justices (the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) agree that the individual mandate is constitutional. Seven Justices (the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer and Kagan, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) agree that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Kagan joined except as to Medicaid expansion. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Academic highlight: Clashing perspectives in the Harvard Law Review's 2011 Supreme Court Issue (Amanda Frost)
- Ask the author: Einer Elhauge on Obamacare on Trial (Kali Borkoski)
- A giant hole in the safety net? (Lyle Denniston)
- Don't call it a mandate -- it's a tax (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
- Live blog of the health care decision (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Kali Borkoski)
- Anticipating the health-care decision: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- A reader's guide to health care ruling (Lyle Denniston)
- Health care: Time to sum up (Lyle Denniston)
- New plea to rule on health mandate (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument recap: A lift for the mandate? (FINAL UPDATE 5:12 pm) (Lyle Denniston)
- In Plain English: Is half a loaf better than no loaf? (Amy Howe)
- Further thoughts on today's severability argument (Kevin Russell)
- Argument recap: Moving on to the mandate (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)
- Academic round-up (Amanda Frost)
- Argument preview: Health care, Part III -- Beyond the mandate (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument preview: Health care, Part II -- Fate of the mandate (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument preview: Health care, Part I -- The power to decide? (Lyle Denniston)
- Prompt release of health care audiotapes (Lyle Denniston)
- Challengers lose on health arguments (Lyle Denniston)
- Health care challengers' view on argument (Lyle Denniston)
- A note on Kagan and health care (Lyle Denniston)
- Health care debate reopens (Lyle Denniston)
- Analysis: Health care's legal, political fate (Lyle Denniston)
- Analysis: Health care's Medicaid expansion (Lyle Denniston)
- 3 days of argument on health care (Lyle Denniston)
- Analysis: Health care's other mandate (Lyle Denniston)
- Health care schedule set (Lyle Denniston)
- The health care grants: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
- The Court's agenda on health care (Lyle Denniston)
- Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care (FINAL) (Lyle Denniston)
- Health care: Now, it's the Court's turn (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and Documents
- SCOTUSblog Health Care resource page
- Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act symposium page
- Lyle Denniston’s Media Guide
From the Oral Argument
Merits Briefs for the National Federation of Independent Business and the States on Severability
- Brief for State Petitioners
- Brief for Private Petitioners
- Reply for the State Petitioners
- Reply for Private Petitioners on Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners on Severability
- Brief for the American Civil Rights Union
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
- Brief for the Competitive Enterprise Institute et al.
- Brief for Economists
- Brief for the Family Research Council
- Brief for the Justice and Freedom Fund
- Brief for Members of the United States Senate
- Brief for the National Restaurant Association
- Brief for the Western Center for Journalism
- Brief for America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shieid Association in Support of Reversal of the Court of Appeals
- Brief for Texas Public Policy Foundation and Cato Institute
Merits Briefs for the Respondents on Severability
- Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al.
- Reply Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents on Severability
- Brief for AARP et al.
- Brief for the American Medical Student Association et al.
- Brief for the American Public Health Association et al.
- Brief for the Michigan Legal Services, Inc., and Other Michigan Non-Profit Corporations
- Brief for the National Indian Health Board, et al.
- Brief for California et al.
- Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
Merits Briefs for the Court-Appointed Amicus Supporting Severability
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Court-Appointed Amicus
- Brief for Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, et al.
- Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
- Brief for the Washington and Lee University School of Law Black Lung Clinic
- Brief for the Michigan Legal Services, Inc., and Other Michigan Non-Profit Corporations
- Brief for David Boyle or motion to intervene
Submit Event
