Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf
Page Number: 48

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

is inseverable from the provisions that burden the States. 
I  begin  with  the  question  whether  the  individual  man-
date falls within a power granted to Congress under Article 
I of the Constitution.  The Constitution’s text and our prec-
edent compel the conclusion that it does not. 

The  Federal  Government  “is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be 
one  of  enumerated  powers.”    McCulloch  v.  Maryland,  4 
Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).  Ar-
ticle I of the Constitution does not give Congress “plenary 
legislative power.”  Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic 
Assn., 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 15).  Instead, it 
enumerates  certain  legislative  powers  that,  while  “sizea-
ble,” are not “unlimited.”  Ibid. 

When  the  constitutionality  of  the  individual  mandate
was  first  challenged  in  NFIB,  the  Government’s  primary
defense  was  that  it  represented  a  valid  exercise  of  Con-
gress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, but a major-
ity of the Court squarely rejected that argument.  See 567 
U. S., at 572 (opinion of the Court) (“The Court today holds 
that  our  Constitution  protects  us  from  federal  regulation
under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the
regulated  activity”);  see  also  id.,  at  561  (opinion  of 
ROBERTS,  C. J.)  (“The  commerce  power  thus  does  not  au-
thorize the mandate”); id., at 648 (joint dissent) (“The Act
before us here exceeds federal power . . . in mandating the 
purchase of health insurance”).  Likewise, a majority of the 
Court  rejected  the  Government’s  resort  to  the  Necessary 
and  Proper  Clause.  See  id.,  at  560  (opinion  of  ROBERTS, 
C. J.); id., at 655 (joint dissent).  I agreed with those hold-
ings at the  time, and that is still my view.  The mandate 
cannot  be  sustained  under  the  Commerce  Clause  or  the 
Necessary  and  Proper  Clause,  and  in  this  suit,  no  party 
urges us to uphold it on those grounds. 
  While  the  NFIB  Court  rejected  the  Government’s  Com-
merce Clause argument, a majority held that the mandate 
represented  a  lawful  exercise  of  Congress’s  taxing  power,