Obamacare in the Supreme Court: Why the Commerce Clause reliance shouldn't be second-guessed

Why It’s Fruitless To Second-Guess the Constitutional Theory Under Which Obama’s Health Care Reform Was Drafted

Why It’s Fruitless To Second-Guess the Constitutional Theory Under Which Obama’s Health Care Reform Was Drafted

The law, lawyers, and the court.
Jan. 9 2012 11:20 AM

Hand-Wringing on Health Care

Supporters of Obama’s health care act should stop second-guessing the way it was drafted.

US President Barack Obama.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on President Obama's health care act in March

Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images.

With the Affordable Care Act individual mandate’s day of destiny before the Supreme Court fast approaching (oral arguments are set for March 27-28), some ACA supporters are now quietly fretting whether a way could have been found to finesse this whole skirmish with the most conservative justices in three quarters of a century. Such anxieties were recently vented—and, presumably, stoked—in two recent New Republic articles by Princeton health-policy historian Paul Starr. Starr acknowledges that, like all social insurance programs, the ACA needs a strong stick to motivate beneficiaries to contribute their share to the insurance fund before they collect benefits. But, he asserts, the way the ACA’s drafters and defenders packaged its incentive mechanism amounts to a tragic “legal miscalculation.” If only they had cast it purely as an exercise of Congress’ authority to levy taxes, Starr insists, rather than as a regulation of interstate commerce, the ACA would now be as good as home free in the Supreme Court: As he put it: “[T]hey could almost certainly have made the law bulletproof by framing it unambiguously under the taxing power of Congress.”

As a wise champion of progressive health policies, Paul Starr’s stature is beyond question. But on this matter of legal strategy, his certitude seems naive. Indeed, especially in light of the ACA mandate’s actual track record in court to date, his take seems downright backward.

Starr is not alone in looking favorably on a tax-based approach. Indeed, in 2009, House Democrats chose precisely that model. The health-reform bill they passed contained no express “mandate” to purchase insurance. It simply imposed tax penalties on those who could afford to get insurance but failed to do so. But the bill signed into law by President Obama was the Senate-passed version, which combined an express mandatory insurance requirement with tax penalties—similar to those in the House bill—for noncompliance. Congressional Democrats were obliged to forego a House-Senate conference that could have integrated the two bills—but requiring a floor vote in the Senate—after they lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority to Scott Brown’s upset win of the late Ted Kennedy’s vacant Massachusetts seat. That was when the bill became more rooted in the Commerce Clause as opposed to the tax power.


Was that bump in the road, seemingly inconsequential at the time, actually the place where the now-looming Supreme Court battle was lost? Not likely.

When Congress was debating the legislation, as Starr himself acknowledges, the case for tethering the mandate to the Commerce Clause power appeared simple, clear, and, well, bulletproof. As former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the business of insuring health care, which represents nearly 18 percent of the national economy, is “of course” commerce, and so, “the health care mandate is a regulation of commerce, explicitly authorized by Article I [of the Constitution].”

“In any event,” he concluded, “it is a necessary and proper part of [the overall ACA scheme for regulating] health insurance that Congress chose to enact.” Q.E.D.

The Republican politicians and activists who took the ACA mandate to court did not themselves dispute such logic. They knew Supreme Court precedent gave them what George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a sometime adviser to Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, termed a “less than one percent chance” of success. They sued anyway. The steam powering their opposition sprang from two sources: 1) partisan politics, part Tea Party zeal and the desire to discredit Barack Obama and obstruct his agenda; and 2) a hope, animating the libertarian legal advocates who staffed the lawsuits, of replacing existing law with pre-New Deal, so-called “Lochner Era” doctrines that would invalidate substantially all 20th-century regulatory, civil rights, and safety net legislation. This libertarian brand of judicial activism had consistently been scorned by mainstream conservative legal leaders, including Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts.

Will the conservative justices (other than openly libertarian Clarence Thomas) continue to toe this line of respect for precedent and judicial restraint? The fate of the ACA mandate turns on that question. It is surely a live one, as cases like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United admonish. But any inclination the court’s conservatives may have to execute a sharp right-face will not be bolstered by the fact that the ACA mandate looks more like a regulation than a tax.

If they have the political will to overturn it, libertarian doctrinal rationales limiting the tax power would get the job done, no less than similarly reactionary approaches gutting Congress’ commerce power. Indeed, lawyers representing ACA opponents have urged the courts to exhume long-defunct tax decisions—of necessity, since the administration’s lawyers have cited both the tax and commerce power in support of the mandate.