In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Chief Justice applied a saving construction to the Affordable Care Act’s penalty, and treated it as a tax, to uphold its constitutionality. (Thom Lambert has a great piece in Regulation Magazine on this topic). But, the Chief Justice placed limitations on the application of the saving construction. The first such limitation stated that because the cost of the “tax” is less than the cost of insurance, a person has a legitimate choice, and there is no coercion:
One of the more disconcerting aspects of following the Affordable Care Act, beyond the numerous delays and waivers announced weekly, has been the cavalier approach by which the government announces these changes. To say nothing of the merits of these significant changes, it is often difficult to find out why and how the government has justified these decisions. More often than not, the explanation will come in a blog post on the Department of Health and Human Services blog (often on a Friday afternoon). Or, perhaps if we are lucky, there will be a handy PDF explaining the changes in more detail.
During oral arguments in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Solicitor General of the United States, charged with defending the Affordable Care Act, made the argument that the law actually promotes liberty. As I retell in Unprecedented, Solicitor General Verrilli drew together a connection between freedom and health care security.
Verilli continued, “There is an important connection.” He paused for emphasis. “A profound connection, between that problem and liberty. And I do think it’s important that we not lose sight of that.” These were comments likely aimed at Justice Kennedy, who has grounded his ve the opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty . . . “In a very fundamental way, this Medicaid expansion, as well jurisprudence in the protection of individual liberty and dignity interests.
In Halbig v. Sebelius–a case that considers whether the Obamacare exchanges operated by the federal government can provide subsidies–seven members of Congress submitted an amicus brief telling the D.C. Circuit what the law really means. Senators Baucus, Harkin, and Reid, and Representatives Levin (MI), Miller (CA), Pelosi (CA), and Waxman (CA) insist that congress never intended to limit subsidies to state-run exchanges.
I am excited to announce that Josh Blackman will be blogging here for February and March. I look forward to many engaging posts. A little bit about Mr. Blackman: Josh is an Assistant Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author of Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare. You might recall the fine review of Josh's book we featured a few months back. Cato discussed the book in an onsite forum when it was published. Josh is the founder…