On The Front Lines
In 5-4 Decision, Supreme Court Upholds as Constitutional the Individual Mandate Provision of the Obama Administration’s Healthcare Reform Law
WASHINGTON, DC— In a 5-4 ruling in U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services v. State of Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared the entirety of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to be constitutional, including the “Individual Mandate” provision. The Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the deciding vote, justified its ruling by interpreting the individual mandate provision as a constitutional tax imposed by Congress. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, challenging the “Individual Mandate” provision of the law, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, as an unwarranted and unprecedented exercise of power by the federal government.
The Rutherford Institute’s brief in DOHHS v. State of Florida is available here.
“By interpreting the individual mandate provision as a lawful tax upon the American people, the Supreme Court has authorized a hand-out of taxpayer money to insurance corporations,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This unprecedented exercise of federal power further strengthens the federal government’s dominance over American citizens and sets a precedent for corporate America to rule supreme.”
After taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama embarked on a legislative initiative to overhaul the nation’s health care system, resulting in the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. An integral part of the legislation is the Individual Mandate which commands that, with limited exceptions, all individuals within the United States ensure that they and their dependents are covered by a minimum level of health insurance each month. Individuals who fail to comply with the Individual Mandate are subject to penalty which is statutorily set at $695 per person, including those for whom the noncompliant person is responsible. The Act provides that Congress enact the Individual Mandate under its power to regulate “interstate commerce” as set forth in Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Shortly after its enactment, Florida and 12 other states filed a lawsuit challenging various aspects of the Act, including the Individual Mandate, arguing that Congress had exceeded its power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the states’ claim that the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional and constituted an unprecedented exercise of authority by Congress in requiring persons to purchase a product for the remainder of their lives.
In their amicus brief, Rutherford Institute attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the appeals court’s decision, arguing that a ruling upholding the Individual Mandate “has implications not only as to the freedom of citizens to decide how to provide for their health care, but more broadly on the federalism embodied in the United States Constitution that is meant to preserve liberty by preventing the concentration of power in the national government.” The Institute’s brief pointed out that the Courts have traditionally recognized that the Constitution permits states to make general health and welfare decisions for the public good, and that the Individual Mandate is contrary to this rule and not a “necessary and proper” exercise of Congressional authority. Although the Court held that the individual mandate provision would be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they declared the law to be constitutional in the context of Congress’ authority to impose taxes. Alfred W. Putnam, Jr. and other attorneys with the law firm of Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP, of Philadelphia assisted The Rutherford Institute in drafting and filing the amicus brief.
