Supreme Court Docket Report - November 14, 2011

Originally published November 14, 2011

Keywords: Affordable Care Act , Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Power, statutory interpretation, Anti-Injunction Act,

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related cases of interest to the business community:

Federal Power—Commerce Clause Federal Power—Necessary and Proper Clause Federal Power—Taxing Clause Federal Power—Spending Clause Statutory Interpretation—Severability Jurisdiction—Anti-Injunction Act The Supreme Court granted certiorari today to resolve various constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Act"), the Obama Administration's signature health care law. The three petitions granted by the Court—Nos. 11-393, 11-398, and 11-400—all arise out of the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 648 F.3d 1235. The Court will consider four related questions over five and a half hours of oral argument, which will likely be held in March.

The Individual Mandate: The Court scheduled two hours of oral argument to consider whether the ACA's minimum essential coverage provision, the so-called "individual mandate," which is codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5000A and requires that all individuals maintain a minimum level of health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty, exceeds Congress's powers under Article I of the Constitution.

The government argues that Congress was authorized to enact the minimum coverage provision under the Commerce Clause, which permits Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States," and the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows it "[t]o 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." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. The government also argues that the minimum coverage provision is supported by Congress's "Power To lay and collect Taxes . . . [to] provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States." Id. The challengers argue that a federal mandate requiring private individuals to purchase an insurance product is unprecedented and exceeds the limited powers of the federal government, intruding upon an area of responsibility reserved to the states.

The Court's decision on this issue could redefine the scope of federal legislative and regulatory authority. A decision that significantly expands or restricts...