Constitutionality of Individual Mandate Will Be a Closer Vote Than Originally Thought


While oral arguments often are an uncertain guide to how the Supreme Court will vote, the Justices’ questions and comments during the second day of oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act signaled that the Supreme Court’s decision could be much closer than many had thought.

On behalf of various respondents, Paul Clement and Michael Carvin both argued that the Affordable Care Act exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause for two main reasons: (1) Congress has the power to regulate existing commerce, but not to force people to engage in commerce; and (2) the individual mandate is not a “necessary and proper” means of executing an otherwise constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Four justices seemed to agree, but four justices seemed to view the individual mandate's constitutionality differently.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Constitutional Law Updates, Health Updates, Insurance Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robert Pohls, Pohls & Associates | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »