Title: 
Headings: NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate
NFIB
 
v.
 
Sebelius:
 
Constitutionality
 
of
 
the
 
Individual
 
Mandate
 

Erika
 
K.
 
Lunder
 

Jennifer
 
Staman
 

CRS
 
Report
 
for
 
Congress

Congressional
 
Research
 
Service
 

Summary
 

Introduction
 

Commerce
 
Clause
 

Supreme
 
Court
 
Review
 

Possible
 
Implications
 

Taxing
 
Power
 

Is
 
the
 
Individual
 
Mandate
 
a
 
Tax
 
or
 
Penalty?
 

Have
 
Any
 
Taxes
 
Been
 
Struck
 
Down?
 

Is
 
the
 
Individual
 
Mandate
 
a
 
Direct
 
Tax?
 

Possible
 
Implications
 

Author
 
Contact
 
Information
 


Content: It
 
should
 
be
 
noted
 
that
 
the
 
Supreme
 
Court
 
also
 
rendered
 
a
 
decision
 
on
 
the
 
constitutionality
 
of
 
the
 
ACA’s
 
expansion
 
of
 
the
 
Medicaid
 
program. For
 
a
 
discussion
 
of
 
the
 
Supreme
 
Court’s
 
decision
 
on
 
the
 
Medicaid
 
expansion,
 
see
 
CRS
 
Report
 
R42367,
 
Medicaid
 
and
 
Federal
 
Grant
 
Conditions
 
After
 
NFIB
 
v.
 
Sebelius: Constitutional
 
Issues
 
and
 
Analysis,
 
by
 
Kenneth
 
R.
 
Thomas. Introduction
 
As
 
part
 
of
 
the
 
Patient
 
Protection
 
and
 
Affordable
 
Care
 
Act
 
(ACA),1
 
as
 
amended,
 
Congress
 
enacted
 
the
 
“individual
 
mandate,”
 
which
 
requires
 
certain
 
individuals
 
to
 
have
 
a
 
minimum
 
level
 
of
 
health
 
insurance. Individuals
 
who
 
fail
 
to
 
do
 
so
 
may
 
be
 
subject
 
to
 
a
 
monetary
 
penalty,
 
administered
 
through
 
the
 
tax
 
code.2
 
Prior
 
to
 
ACA,
 
Congress
 
had
 
never
 
required
 
individuals
 
to
 
buy
 
health
 
insurance,
 
and
 
there
 
had
 
been
 
significant
 
debate
 
over
 
whether
 
the
 
individual
 
mandate
 
was
 
within
 
the
 
scope
 
of
 
Congress’s
 
legislative
 
powers. Shortly
 
after
 
ACA
 
was
 
enacted,
 
several
 
lawsuits
 
were
 
filed
 
that
 
challenged
 
the
 
individual
 
mandate
 
on
 
constitutional
 
grounds. While
 
some
 
of
 
these
 
cases
 
were
 
dismissed
 
for
 
procedural
 
reasons,
 
others
 
moved
 
forward. These
 
challenges
 
culminated
 
in
 
a
 
case
 
recently
 
decided
 
by
 
the
 
Supreme
 
Court,
 
National
 
Federation
 
of
 
Independent
 
Business
 
v.
 
Sebelius
 
(NFIB),3
 
one
 
of
 
the
 
most
 
controversial
 
and
 
highly
 
publicized
 
cases
 
in
 
recent
 
years. This
 
case
 
received
 
a
 
great
 
deal
 
of
 
attention,
 
not
 
just
 
because
 
of
 
its
 
potential
 
implications
 
for
 
federal
 
regulation
 
of
 
the
 
health
 
care
 
system,
 
but
 
also
 
for
 
the
 
scope
 
of
 
legislative
 
power
 
and
 
the
 
relationship
 
between
 
the
 
federal
 
government,
 
states,
 
and
 
individuals. The
 
NFIB
 
case
 
began
 
when
 
attorneys
 
general
 
in
 
several
 
states
 
brought
 
an
 
action
 
in
 
the
 
District
 
Court
 
of
 
the
 
Northern
 
District
 
of
 
Florida
 
against
 
the
 
Secretaries
 
of
 
Health
 
and
 
Human
 
Services
 
(HHS),
 
Treasury,
 
and
 
Labor,
 
seeking
 
declaratory
 
and
 
injunctive
 
relief
 
from
 
various
 
requirements
 
of
 
ACA,
 
including
 
the
 
individual
 
mandate.