Law Commons^™

The Commerce Power And Congressional Mandates, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, a five-Justice majority concluded that the commerce power did not support enactment of the so-called “individual mandate,” which imposes a penalty on many persons who fail to buy health insurance. That ruling is sure to spark challenges to other federal laws on the theory that they likewise mandate individuals or entities to take certain actions. Federal laws founded on the commerce power, for example, require mine operators to provide workers with safety helmets and (at least as a practical matter) require mine workers to wear them. Some analysts will say that laws …

Nfib V. Sebelius: Proportionality In The Exercise Of Congressional Power, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

With its opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the U.S. Supreme Court sparked much discussion regarding the implications of the case for other federal statutes. In particular, scholars have debated the significance of the Court's recognition of an anticoercion limit to the Spending Clause power.

When it recognized an anticoercion limit for the ACA's Medicaid expansion, the Court left considerable uncertainty as to the parameters of that limit. This essay sketches out one valuable and very plausible interpretation of the Court's new anticoercion principle. It also indicates how this new principle can address a long-standing problem …

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on allocation of power between the federal government and states. The Article proceeds by …

An Essay On Originalism And The 'Individual Mandate': Rounding Out The Government’S Case For Constitutionality, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court now has under advisement the landmark federal health care law case. Much attention has focused on the law’s minimum coverage provision—or so-called “individual mandate” — and, in particular, its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. In a separate and much lengthier article, I offer two main observations about the arguments made to the Court on that issue. First, I show that the challengers of the minimum coverage provision emphasized originalist reasoning in their briefs and oral arguments, while the federal government did not. Second, I explain why — contrary to the impression …

Constitutional Challenges To The Health Care Mandate: Based In Politics, Not Law, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why It Doesn’T Matter, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Reconstructing The Individual Mandate As An Escrow Account, Gregg Polsky

Scholarly Works

This short essay in Michigan Law Review First Impressions describes how the individual mandate could be reconstructed as an escrow account. Such a restructuring would ameliorate policy concerns regarding the mandate while still deterring the opportunistic behavior that would otherwise occur as a result of the nondiscrimination rules imposed on insurers.