The History Book Club - SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S.: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS Showing 1-15 of 15
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
After election, President Barack Obama and his administration had been focused on healthcare which led to the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This highlighted the need for reform in the American health care system which has been highly costly. The reform had been highly controversial, and questions about if this Act was the best solution or if this would solve anything were raised. This has led to discourse over the constitutionality of the Act. The questions and concerns about the constitutionality of the Act had led several states to file a suit against it which reached the Supreme Court. The National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius became a major Supreme Court case that reevaluated the limits of what the Federal Government could regulate and how they would enforced it.
The goals of the Act were to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and to decrease the cost of health care. No republicans voted for the bill. Since the ACA's passage, it has come under legal attack from many fronts. Under the Act, the States were to set up exchanges which listed the various insurance plans and the associated costs. Accessing the exchange website would allow people to shop for a plan that would best fit their needs. If a State decided that the cost of setting up the exchange was too high or for whatever other reason, then the Federal government would come in and set up its own exchange.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. (), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court.
why did you block me quotes
Finally, the Medicaid expansion provision of the ACA violates the Constitution by threatening states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Judgment : Affirmed in part and reversed in part , , in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate, and five Justices the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan agree that the individual mandate is constitutional.
While only four Justices found its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance 26 U. All of the Court agreed with Roberts that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent courts from hearing challenges to the individual mandate provision. He noted that the Act applies to taxes, whereas the individual mandate is defined by the law as a penalty. Meanwhile, a majority of the Court agreed with Roberts that the individual mandate was constitutional under the tax power of Congress, despite its definition as a penalty under the law. Courts generally are very deferential when Congress exercises its tax power.