National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Case Brief Summary

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Рет қаралды 60,152

9 жыл бұрын

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius | 567 U.S. 519 (2012)
In 2010, Congress passed a controversial health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (popularly known as ObamaCare, or the ACA). Shortly afterward, multiple parties, including business organizations, individuals, and 26 states, filed suit in district courts across the country to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. The results were fractured: some courts upheld some or all of the ACA, others declared part or all unconstitutional, some concluded offending provisions could be severed, and others argued that the Act couldn’t be challenged until someone was forced to pay the penalty.
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the National Federation of Independent Business, the State of Florida, and other plaintiffs sued in Florida federal court Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ACA is a massive piece of legislation, but the litigation challenged two key provisions: (1) the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a “penalty” and (2) the Medicaid expansion provision, which conditioned continued receipt of federal Medicaid funds on states expanding their eligibility requirements for the program.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/nationa...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/nationa...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZfaq Channel ► kzfaq.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Пікірлер: 15

@Alterseven 6 жыл бұрын

I'm an Italian student doing researches about Sebelius case for university. I thank you a lot for your clarity. Priceless explanation.

@bryonwatkins1432 3 жыл бұрын

This is in general. Regardless how mad 😡 people are, to understand what any branch of give does, they have to read constitutional law and political science. Many that are indoctrinated seem to think one has to be in a college classroom to become educated.SMMFH!!!! That being said, i say this. Robert’s cited Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). The question in that case was “Was the carriage tax a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states?” In conclusion, and to be short, Robert’s voting for the ACA by amending the The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, you’ll also have to read Court cases, like Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and indirect versus direct taxes!!!! A lot to read. Robert’s was right!!!!

@BenHoustonKing 8 жыл бұрын

Isn't this case the first time the Court held an exercise of Congress's spending power (the medicaid expansion) was unconstitutional? Why exactly did Roberts hold the medicaid expansion was unconstitutional? Was it the coercive nature of the expansion?

@InfiniteProdu 7 жыл бұрын

They deemed so under the Taxing and Spending Clause of the Constitution because Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Basically, I believe they're arguing that by exclusively denying pre-existing Medicaid funding to states which opt out of expansion, the Congress would not be uniformly providing for the general welfare. Congress is thus putting any opposing states at a systemic disadvantage which they shouldn't be doing.

@ChairmanJMao 5 жыл бұрын

@@InfiniteProdu it's under the anti coorecion

@fernandojuarezrodriguez9753 4 жыл бұрын

The Court has implied before that Congress's spending power was not limitless, and that people could bring about lawsuits when it violated its spending power, when directly connected to another limit set to such power in the constitution, such as the establishment clause. Flast v. Cohen.

@USTankslashercoal 6 жыл бұрын

Fuck yeah!!!! Nothing gets me off like a good Commerce Clause strike down! NARROW THE SCOPE!!! LETS GO JUSTICE ROBERTS! GET EM!!

@mfrazier57 3 жыл бұрын

Roberts was a sell out in this case. His opinion has no basis in fact in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is to interpret the law not make it up. Congress said time and time again that the penalty was NOT a tax, yet this is actually what Roberts made it.

@HolyShitKat 2 жыл бұрын

As a penalty, it would not have passes because there is no option, it is a mandate. By rewriting it as a tax (which congress does have the power to do), it was able to pass.

@bestproto5117 2 жыл бұрын

@@HolyShitKat normally congress should write the law not the supreme court The individual mandate was not a Tax because it doesn't bring revenues to the government..... Even Barack Obama said the individual mandate was not a Tax.... This opinion by Robert was literally a huge humiliation for the judiciary and for the constitution.....

@yohance35 2 жыл бұрын

@@bestproto5117 That only became the case after a GOP-controlled Congress zeroed out the tax. At the time NFIB v. Sibelius was decided, the individual mandate was projected to raise revenue, as Roberts notes in his opinion: "This process yields the essential feature of any tax: It produces at least some revenue for the Government. Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017." 567 U.S. 519, 564 (2012) (internal citation omitted)

@bestproto5117 2 жыл бұрын

@@yohance35 So then why Obama himself said it was not a Tax? Robert and the other liberals wanted to save the act so they wrote something completely out of constitutional norms and turned a clear penelty into a Tax! The commerce clause doesn't give the government the right to punish people who chose to stay away from the market! Including the insurance industry The court made that clear multiple times.....

@yohance35 2 жыл бұрын

@@bestproto5117 I agree that reframing it as a tax was kind of reinterpreting the statute to bring the mandate out of the Commerce Clause power and into the taxing power, as the statute itself refers to it as a "penalty". The point I was making is that the mandate did, in fact, generate revenue through the IRS as originally conceived, one of its traits that led Roberts to deem it a tax. It wasn't until 2017-five years AFTER NFIB-that the mandate was zeroed out by Congress, so to critique Roberts's opinion on that particular ground is a mis-sequencing of historical events. It DID bring revenue to the government at the time NFIB was decided and for a few years thereafter until it was eliminated