National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

The United States Constitution, 1st Amendment

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was a court case that was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. The judgment had great political significance, because the Court considered the controversial health care reform by President Barack Obama of 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 many states levied against health care reform lawsuit. These lawsuits were under the title National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius assessed by the Court in summary.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

Hearings from 26 to March 28, 2012

The Court ordered from 26 to 28 March 2012, on three days of oral hearings with a duration of six hours.

Decision dated June 28, 2012

The court noted that the Congress of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution may indeed derive the power to regulate the active trading. However, this does not rule the expertise to, persons who behaved passively, to commit to a Tun. The Congress could not oblige citizens to have health insurance therefore.

In contrast, the majority of the Constitutional Court of the view that we are dealing with the proposed fine for ( non-exempt ) non-insured to a tax that is covered by the tax jurisdiction of the federal government.

Only at one point, the Court held unconstitutional a. After that, the Congress has no power to the states to withdraw funding for health insurance for less well-off, and the disabled ( Medicaid ) if they do not expand Medicaid to more of the population. Thus, the States have the option to reject the expansion of Medicaid for cost reasons.

Reception of the judgment

The verdict was surprising, because the appointed by President George W. Bush and as a conservative force Chief Justice John Roberts, the views of those judges joined, which were nominated by Democratic presidents. So he set a clear sign against emerging in recent years, suspicion, the Supreme Court not decide because of constitutional law, but because of a political agenda appointed by Republican presidents judge.