Roberts Says Law’s Offer To States On Medicaid ‘Is A Gun To The Head’
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court on the challenge by 26 states and others to the 2010 health care law. Here are edited excerpts from Roberts鈥 opinion:
Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provi颅sions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a mini颅mum level of coverage; and the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they pro颅vide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold. We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation鈥檚 elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions. 鈥
In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolv颅ing this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government鈥檚 power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries. 鈥
The Government advances two theories for the proposi颅tion that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could un颅dercut the Affordable Care Act鈥檚 other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress鈥檚 power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the indi颅vidual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax. 鈥
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individ颅uals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Con颅gress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast do颅main to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and鈥攗nder the Government鈥檚 theory鈥攅mpower Congress to make those decisions for him. 鈥
To consider a different example in the health care market, many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. 鈥 The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to pur颅chase insurance. 鈥 Those in颅creased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured. 鈥 Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Gov颅ernment鈥檚 theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables. People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures鈥攋oined with the similar failures of others鈥攃an readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government鈥檚 logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. 鈥
Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. 鈥
The Government regards it as sufficient to trigger Congress鈥檚 authority that almost all those who are unin颅sured will, at some unknown point in the future, engage in a health care transaction. 鈥 Everyone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. 鈥
Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Com颅merce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress鈥檚 use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. 鈥 The Affordable Care Act鈥檚 requirement that certain in颅dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be颅cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. 鈥
The States also contend that the Medicaid expansion exceeds Congress鈥檚 authority under the Spending Clause. They claim that Congress is coercing the States to adopt the changes it wants by threatening to withhold all of a State鈥檚 Medicaid grants. 鈥
In this case, the financial 鈥渋nducement鈥 Congress has chosen is much more than 鈥渞elatively mild encourage颅ment鈥濃攊t is a gun to the head. Section 1396c of the Medi颅caid Act provides that if a State鈥檚 Medicaid plan does not comply with the Act鈥檚 requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may declare that 鈥渇urther payments will not be made to the State.鈥 A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act鈥檚 expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely 鈥渁 relatively small percentage鈥 of its existing Medi颅caid funding, but all of it. 鈥
There is no doubt that the Act dramatically increases state obligations under Medicaid. The current Medicaid program requires States to cover only certain discrete categories of needy individuals鈥攑regnant women, chil颅dren, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the dis颅abled. There is no mandatory coverage for most childless adults, and the States typically do not offer any such coverage. The States also enjoy considerable flexibility with respect to the coverage levels for parents of needy families. On average States cover only those unemployed parents who make less than 37 percent of the federal poverty level, and only those employed parents who make less than 63 per颅cent of the poverty line. 鈥
The Medicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act, in contrast, require States to expand their Medicaid pro颅grams by 2014 to cover all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line. The Act also establishes a 鈥淸e]ssential health benefits鈥 package, which States must provide to all new Medicaid recipients鈥攁 level sufficient to satisfy a recipient鈥檚 obligations under the individual man颅date. The Af颅fordable Care Act provides that the Federal Government will pay 100 percent of the costs of covering these newly eligible individuals through 2016. In the following years, the federal payment level gradually de颅creases, to a minimum of 90 percent. 鈥
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availa颅bility of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. 鈥
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is re颅served to the people.
