Healthcare law and the Court's guiding principles

To contact us Click HERE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Chief Justice did an admirable job of producing a decision in the healthcare act. One is better served by reading the court's decisions themselves rather than look to news pundits' interpretation. This case reflects an excellent example of decision writing.

Court decisions, certainly those above the first level courts, contain rationales for their decisions. Precedents are followed. Opinions are justified based upon other relevant authorities. Thus, decisions are not one off. And I submit that, for the most part, this process of decision making tends to eliminate personal political expressions.

Here are some excerpts from the first portion of  the opinion by the Chief Justice. Citations are omitted. What the Chief Justice does is to set out the role of the Court in relation to Congress and Executive Branch. It establishes a framework.

"We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

"The Federal Government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.”  That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers."

"Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy."

"This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power. The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”"

"Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”"

"Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."

"And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions."

"Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.”"

My favorite, especially the last sentence:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

"Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.”