Source: http://volokh.com/category/individual-mandate/page/18/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:49:53+00:00

Document:
There are several interesting aspects of today’s Florida federal district court ruling rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss a challenge to the Obama health care plan’s individual mandate brought by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. First, as Randy Barnett emphasizes, this ruling, like the similar Virginia decision before it, further undercuts claims that the lawsuits against the mandate are either frivolous or clearly precluded by existing precedent. Even the recent Michigan district court ruling upholding the mandate conceded that it was a case of “first impression” (although the judge also tried to argue that the mandate ultimately does fit under current doctrine).
I. Judge Vinson Rules that the Mandate is Not a Tax.
Because it is called a penalty on its face (and because Congress knew how to say “tax” when it intended to….), it would be improper to inquire as to whether Congress really meant to impose a tax. I will not assume that Congress had an unstated design to act pursuant to its taxing authority, nor will I impute a revenue-generating purpose to the penalty when Congress specifically chose not to provide one. It is “beyond the competency” of this court to question and ascertain whether Congress really meant to do and say something other than what it did.
Kopel comment on states’ victory on health control lawsuit.
My comment on today’s decision, granting the motion to dismiss on some counts, and while allowing other counts to proceed. Like Randy’s comment, my comment is posted on the blog of the site Health Care Lawsuits, which is hosted by the Independent Women’s Forum.
The court entirely rejected the administration’s claim that the penalty for disobeying the mandate is justified under the federal tax power. As the court noted, Congress went out of its way to specify that the penalty is not a tax. Second, the court ruled that it is proper for the plaintiffs to be heard in their challenge to the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014. The court cited extensive precedent showing that when a future harm is certain, courts can act in the present to protect citizens from that harm. The court rejected the argument that the various employer mandates violate the constitutional sovereignty of states; as the court noted, the law simply treats states like other large employers, and so making states provide the same health benefits as other large employers must provide is no different from making states pay the same minimum wage as all other employers.
Michigan federal district Judge George Caram Steeh just issued an opinion upholding the Obama health care plan’s individual mandate against a challenge by the conservative Thomas More Law Center and several individual plaintiffs who refuse to purchase health insurance by 2014 as the mandate requires.
This is the first opinion issued on the merits in any of the health care lawsuits, though the court hearing the case brought by the state of Virginia earlier issued a decision denying the government’s motion to dismiss.
I don’t have time to comment in detail right now. But I will note a few key points.
First, the decision upholds the mandate under the Commerce Clause alone. It does not address the government’s arguments claiming that the mandate is authorized by the Tax Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, except to say that Congress may use a monetary penalty to enforce a legitimate Commerce Clause regulation (which I think is correct).
Because not being insured therefore turns out to be an activity rather than inactivity, it is covered by Supreme Court Commerce Clause cases such as Gonzales v. Raich, whose implications for the mandate case I discussed at length in this post.
In his most recent post in our debate over the Necessary and Proper Clause, Orin argues that Supreme Court precedent has resolved the issue of what counts as “proper” as well as what is “necessary.” That, however, simply is not so. None of the cases Orin cites say anything about the meaning of “proper.” They all focus on whether the measure in question was “necessary” or not.
I’ve enjoyed my exchange with Ilya on the health care mandate, although I find myself in the exchange becoming increasingly of the view that this isn’t a difficult issue under current Supreme Court caselaw. Here’s one more round to try to sharpen the debate between us.
The crux of the disagreement between Ilya and I boils down to the Necessary and Proper clause. The Supreme Court has often entered decisions on the scope of the Necessary and Proper clause, construing the clause quite broadly and upholding statutes on the ground that it did not violate the clause. In my view, those cases pretty much end the matter: For better or worse, those cases are so deferential that they point pretty clearly to the view that the individual mandate satisfies the standard.
In contrast, Ilya sees the Supreme Court cases on the Necessary and Proper clause as answering when legislation is “necessary” but not reaching what is “proper.” Thus, as I understand Ilya’s view, the cases on what satisfies the Necessary and Proper Clause are not particularly helpful because they do not expressly reach a conclusion — apparently because challengers forgot to raise the issue — on what is proper. Ilya thus concludes that there is no significant caselaw on what is “proper” and lower courts must construe the meaning of “proper” using text and original meaning unburdened by precedent.
Orin has replied to my post explaining why current Supreme Court doctrine doesn’t support the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
He makes three points that I will briefly answer. First, Orin suggests that current Supreme Court doctrine gives a broad interpretation of the word “proper” in the Clause. However, all the cases he cites are in fact interpretations of the word “necessary,” not “proper.” As I said in my original post, the Court has interpreted “necessary” very broadly. But it has not done the same with “proper.” The main textual argument against the mandate focuses on the latter.
Second, Orin suggests that the five part test outlined in United States v. Comstock does not apply going forward, and only applies to the unusual circumstances of Comstock itself. However, the Court spent a great deal of time and space outlining and applying the five factor test. Nothing in the opinion suggests that it applies only to Comstock itself or some narrow range of similar cases. If that were the Court’s intention, surely they would not have omitted this extremely important qualification to their reasoning. After all, a big part of the justices’ job is to provide guidance for lower courts on how to decide future cases, and they are well aware of that responsibility.
[The Supreme Court] has said very little about what “proper” actually means. Under the text and original meaning of the Constitution (which the Court is more likely to resort to in cases where there is little or no relevant precedent), “proper” at the very least means that the federal government cannot claim virtually unlimited power (we cite to works discussing some of the relevant evidence in the amicus brief). Otherwise, it would render all or most of Congress’ other enumerated powers completely superfluous, making a hash of the text. And the logic of the government’s position does indeed lead to virtually unlimited federal power.
In a recent post, co-blogger Orin Kerr outlines what has become the standard argument that the Obama health care plan’s individual mandate is authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause. The claim is that the goal of the legislation is to regulate commerce in health insurance (which, under current doctrine, is a permissible end under the Commerce Clause) and the individual mandate is a “necessary and proper” means even if it isn’t one that comes under one of Congress’ enumerated powers by itself.
I think this is probably the government’s best argument. But it’s not nearly as much of a slam dunk – even under current doctrine – as Orin and others imagine. I explain why in greater detail in my recent amicus brief on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of constitutional law scholars (pp. 23-30). To summarize, there are two major problems with the argument: the mandate flunks the five part test outlined in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Comstock, and it is not “proper.” The Court has (wrongly in my view) adopted a highly permissive definition of what counts as “necessary.” But proving “necessity” is not enough for the government to win its case.
I. The Comstock Five Part Test.
The Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich ruled that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce gives it the power to ban possession of medical marijuana that had never crossed state lines or been sold in any market anywhere. It was easily the broadest-ever Supreme Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause. When I first considered the question, I thought that Raich’s reasoning was expansive enough to justify the individual mandate. I still believed that the mandate was unconstitutional (primarily because I have always argued that Raich was a horrible decision). But I thought that it could probably go through under Raich. And the government has in fact relied heavily on Raich in its brief in the Virginia case challenging the mandate.
2. Raich makes it easy for Congress to impose controls on even “non-economic” activity by claiming that it is part of a broader regulatory scheme aimed at something economic.
Today, we filed an amicus brief in Virginia v. Sebelius, one of the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan’s individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine. I wrote the brief on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation, a leading pro-free market public interest law firm, and fourteen prominent constitutional law scholars (this was the pro bono project that I finished right before my wedding).
The brief signers include VC co-conspirators Jonathan Adler, David Kopel, and Todd Zywicki, along with other well-known constitutional law scholars such as James Ely (Vanderbilt), Kurt Lash (University of Illinois), Gary Lawson (BU), Steven Presser (Northwestern), and others. Also among the signers is Professor Steven Willis of the University of Florida, coauthor of an important article explaining why, even if the mandate is a tax, it is not a tax authorized by the Constitution. Co-blogger Randy Barnett is filing his own amicus brief along with the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute.
If nothing else, I hope the brief will help dispel the myth that there is an expert consensus to the effect that the mandate is constitutional (see also here). It should by now be obvious that many well-known and highly respected scholars believe otherwise.
Those who argue that the federal government has nearly unlimited authority often cite the Necessary and Proper Clause. That clause gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Comstock is a step in the direction of interpreting the clause as a virtual blank check for Congress to regulate almost any activity it wants. But the decision is vague on several key points, and its long-term effects are difficult to predict.
Part I of this article discusses Section 4248 of the Adam Walsh Act, the provision the Court upheld in Comstock. It also summarizes the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Part II criticizes the Court’s reasoning. The majority’s extremely broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause may render much of the careful enumeration of congressional power in Article I of the Constitution superfluous. In addition, it tries to link the statute to a nebulous congressional authority to act as a “custodian” for federal prisoners that is itself not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.
Monday’s federal district court decision refusing to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan is an important step forward for opponents of the plan.
The legal battle over the Obama health care plan is far from over.
Nonetheless, Hudson’s ruling is a victory for those who believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. It makes it difficult to argue that the lawsuits against the mandate are mere political grandstanding with no basis in serious legal argument.
Federal District Judge Henry Hudson’s opinion refusing to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan has several interesting aspects. The suit focuses primarily on a challenge to the “individual mandate” element of the plan, which requires most American citizens and legal residents to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014 or pay a fine for nocompliance. Here are a few of the most important points covered in the opinion.
First, Hudson rejected the federal government’s claim that Virginia did not have standing to challenge the mandate. Although states are generally not allowed standing to litigate the interests of their citizens, Hudson argues that Virginia has standing because the federal health care bill conflicts with a recently enacted Virginia state law, the Health Care Freedom Act. This, he argues, is enough to give Virginia standing, overcoming the sorts of federal government standing arguments that I discussed in this post. This argument may have negative implications for the other major lawsuit against Obamacare, filed by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business. Most of those states do not have state laws comparable to the Health Care Freedom Act. NFIB, however, has individual members who are subject to it, such as self-employed businessmen. In addition, the other states could try to establish standing by relying on the broad theories of state standing endorsed by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. Hudson also rejects the federal government’s argument that the lawsuit isn’t “ripe” for adjudication because the individual mandate will not come into effect until 2014. He points out that the new federal law will force both individuals and the state government to make adjustments to their health insurance plans even before that.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.