National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
| National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
| Decided June 28, 2012 |
||||||
|
||||||
| statement | ||||||
| Positions | ||||||
|
||||||
| Applied Law | ||||||
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was a judicial case heard in the United States Supreme Court . The judgment had great political significance because the Court the controversial health care reform by President Barack Obama considered in 2010 in its basic features as constitutional.
Starting position
In March 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act . Some organizations (such as the National Federation of Independent Business), parts of the Republican Party and numerous states brought legal action against the health care reform. These lawsuits were filed under the title National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius summarized by the court.
Proceedings in the Supreme Court
Hearings March 26-28, 2012
The Court ordered oral hearings over three days from March 26-28, 2012, lasting a total of six hours.
Decision of June 28, 2012
The court found that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress to derive the power to regulate active trade. However, this does not include the competence to oblige people who behave passively to do something. The Congress can not require citizens to take out health insurance so.
On the other hand, the majority of the constitutional judges were of the opinion that the proposed fine for (non-exempt) uninsured persons was a tax that was covered by the federal taxation powers.
The court found unconstitutional only in one point. Thereafter, Congress does not have the power to withdraw Medicaid grants from states if they do not expand Medicaid to include additional populations. Thus, the states have the option of rejecting the expansion of Medicaid for reasons of cost.
Reception of the judgment
The verdict came as a surprise because Chief Justice John Roberts , who was appointed by President George W. Bush and is considered conservative, endorsed the opinion of those judges who were nominated by Democratic presidents. In doing so, he set a clear signal against the suspicion that has arisen in recent years that the Supreme Court no longer decides on the basis of constitutional law, but on the basis of a political agenda of the judges appointed by the republican presidents.
As a result, it turned out that the abandonment of the obligation to expand Medicare has significant consequences and affects these different social groups very differently. Very conservative US states still refused to expand Medicaid in 2017. These states are predominantly in the south and the affected citizens are massively disproportionately Afro-American. In its decision, the court did not take into account these consequences and their constitutional implications, even though the pleadings of the federal government and several amicii curiae point this out.
Web links
swell
- ↑ Peter Winkler: "Obama Care" put to the test by the Supreme Court. NZZ, March 27, 2012, accessed on August 21, 2012 .
- ^ Mark Pitzke: Judges save Obama's prestige project. Spiegel.de, June 28, 2012, accessed on August 21, 2012 .
- ↑ Christian Kölz: Balancing act of the Supreme Court. NZZ, July 12, 2012, accessed on August 21, 2012 .
- ↑ Reymer Klüver: Conservative deviator saves Obamacare. sueddeutsche.de, June 28, 2012, accessed January 5, 2016 .
- ↑ Stephen Griffin, The Tragedy of the Medicaid Expansion: A Story of Race and Federalism (Part I). On: Balkinization, February 28, 2017
