Tag Archives: Severability

Affordable Care Act Back at the Supreme Court

Now that we know that our long national nightmare is almost at an end, it’s time to return to looking at the mess that he has left behind.  And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will be looking at one of the messes that Trump created — the continued validity of the Affordable Care Act.

While the exact issue arises from the “Cut Trump’s Taxes” tax legislation passed in 2017 by some very unusual procedural maneuvers, the core of the issue comes from the Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, in part, in 2012.   Extreme conservative lawyers are partially right about that decision.  It was an atrocious decision, but not for the reasons identified by the far right.

For seventy-five years, from 1938 to 2012, the Supreme Court had taken a very expansive view of the Commerce Clause (which allows the federal government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (which allows the federal government to pass legislation that is related to the fields expressly allocated to the federal government).  This interpretation is what allows the federal government to criminalize the growing of marijuana for personal use or street level drug offenses.  Somehow, the Supreme Court decided that even though people with health insurance (or without health insurance) may travel in interstate commerce and have to use that insurance in other states, the individual mandate was not authorized by either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.  Now, if the Supreme Court had struck down the Affordable Care Act (requiring the average American to purchase health insurance), Congress would have had to turn to an alternative like a single payer system.  So, the Chief Justice wanting to both deliver a victory for the far right (by selectively restricting the scope of the Commerce Clause) without destroying the insurance industry found an alternative justification for the Affordable Care Act — classifying the individual mandate as a tax authorized by Congress’s power to raise taxes. Continue Reading...

Posted in Healthcare, Judicial | Also tagged , Comments Off on Affordable Care Act Back at the Supreme Court

Political Robocalls and Faithless Electors — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 1 (UPDATED — 7/8)

On Monday, the Supreme Court went into what is essentially overtime.  We are now the latest for issuing opinions since 1974 (the year of Watergate) when the last opinion from the regular term was issued the day after the Supreme Court heard the Watergate arguments.  It is unlikely that we will reach that July 25 date this year, but anything is possible.  (Given that the Watergate opinion is a key precedent on the still pending Trump Organization subpoena cases, the poetic irony has to be appreciated.)  We do have a second opinion day this week scheduled for Wednesday; so potentially Wednesday could be the last day or there could still be additional opinion days to come.  (With five cases still outstanding, getting all five on Wednesday would be somewhat surprising given the pace of opinions so far this term, but anything is possible, but there already has been one five-opinion day this term.)

Monday’s two opinions both concerned the process of elections.  On the one hand, the Barr case was brought by the lobbying group for political consultants challenging the barriers that the federal robocall statute places to even more repetitive phone calls from campaigns.  On the other hand, the Chiafalo case (and the companion case from Colorado) involves the very rules governing the conduct of the electors chosen by the various states to actually cast the “real” votes in the presidential election.

In the long run, Barr may be the more important of the two.  The federal robocall statute dates back to the early 90s (and, yes, it has been close to an utter failure).  In 2015, Congress amended the statute to pass an exception allowing the federal government to have people make robocalls seeking to collect debt owed to the government.  Some political consultants and other groups saw this amendment as an opening to raise a First Amendment complaint against the robocall statute.  The bottom line of this decision is they won the battle, but lost the war. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Political Robocalls and Faithless Electors — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 1 (UPDATED — 7/8)