The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Two Men Arrested in Sanford Stabbing and Bike Theft Case
  • South Portland High School Locked Down This Morning After Suspicious Individual Spotted Near Entrance
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Longest-Serving Female Senator, Dead At 90
  • Angus King and West Virginia Senator Partner to Designate September as ‘National Recovery Month’ Amid Rise in Overdoses
  • Senate Unanimously Approves Official Business-Appropriate Dress Code
  • ‘Enough is Enough’: Portland Business Owners Speak Out About Crime and Violence in City’s Homeless Encampments [VIDEO]
  • Low Approval Ratings for Congress and Biden Persist as Government Shutdown Looms: Gallup Poll
  • Sanford Man Stabbed Multiple Times After Having His Bike Stolen Near City’s Homeless Hot Spot
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Login
Friday, September 29
  • News
  • Commentary
  • Maine Wire TV
  • Podcasts
  • About
  • Contact
The Maine Wire
Home » News » The individual mandate is unconstitutional. What’s next?
Healthcare

The individual mandate is unconstitutional. What’s next?

Adam CrepeauBy Adam CrepeauDecember 29, 2019Updated:December 29, 2019No Comments4 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

On December 18, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed in a 2-1 decision that the individual mandate outlined in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional. 

The individual mandate required individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or pay a penalty known as the “individual shared responsibility payment.” Americans were required to purchase insurance or pay a penalty to lower risk in the insurance pool and allow insurance companies to remain solvent. In addition, insurance companies couldn’t deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. Healthy individuals acted as a counterbalance because they generally utilize their coverage less frequently and are less costly to cover. 

In National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld the individual mandate. The rationale? They decided that the penalty could be interpreted as a tax on an individual’s decision not to purchase health insurance and was covered by Congress’ ability to tax under Article I of the United States Constitution. If the ACA had merely required individuals to purchase insurance without giving them the choice to pay the penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS deemed the individual shared responsibility payment a tax because of these four factors:

  1. It produced revenue for the government
  2. It is paid into the treasury by taxpayers when they file their tax returns
  3. The amount owed is determined by familiar factors (taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status)
  4. The requirement to pay is in the Internal Revenue Code and is enforced by the IRS and is collected in the same manner as taxes 

However, this landscape changed when Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 and the penalty for not purchasing health insurance was set to $0. This change in policy sparked the controversy in Texas v. United States; plaintiffs assert that the penalty is no longer a tax because it does not generate revenue, a requirement for a tax. They also contend that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the ACA, and as a result, the entire law should be thrown out. In 2018, a District Court Judge agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a declaratory judgement, allowing the law to continue until the case is taken up by another court. 

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the individual shared responsibility payment is no longer a tax because it does not produce revenue for the government when set to $0. Therefore, the individual shared responsibility payment does not meet the other three factors either — it is not paid into the treasury, determined by familiar factors or enforced by the IRS. In other words, the SCOTUS’ rationale for deeming the individual mandate constitutional in NFIB is no longer applicable due to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 

However, the severability question is more complicated. The Fifth Circuit found that the District Court’s severability analysis was incomplete and remanded it. More specifically, the Fifth Circuit directed the District Court to “employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual Mandate.” In order for the individual mandate to be severable from the entire ACA, the District Court must find that Congress would have passed the ACA without the individual mandate. The Fifth Circuit speaks to that fact: 

“It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not. But it is no small thing for unelected, life-tenured judges to declare duly enacted legislation passed by the elected representatives of the American people unconstitutional. The rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today.”

This analysis will likely involve parsing through every section of the ACA to determine whether they are linked to the individual mandate and if Congress would have passed them without the mandate. Regardless of what the District Court decides after further analysis, this case will likely appealed all the way to the SCOTUS for final review.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Affordable Care Act Commentary Featured health care health insurance individual mandate insurance Obamacare SCOTUS Supreme Court
Previous ArticleCartoon: Hard to please this Christmas
Next Article Understanding Governor Mills’ 10-year economic plan
Adam Crepeau

Adam Crepeau is a former policy analyst at Maine Policy Institute.

Related Posts

Angus King and West Virginia Senator Partner to Designate September as ‘National Recovery Month’ Amid Rise in Overdoses

September 29, 2023

Portland City Council to Consider $134,000 150-Bed Expansion to Homeless Shelter by Emergency Declaration

September 26, 2023

Natural Disaster Threatens Man-Made Disaster as Hurricane Lee Bears Down on Portland’s Growing Homeless Camp

September 15, 2023

Leave A Reply

Recent News

Two Men Arrested in Sanford Stabbing and Bike Theft Case

September 29, 2023

South Portland High School Locked Down This Morning After Suspicious Individual Spotted Near Entrance

September 29, 2023

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Longest-Serving Female Senator, Dead At 90

September 29, 2023

Angus King and West Virginia Senator Partner to Designate September as ‘National Recovery Month’ Amid Rise in Overdoses

September 29, 2023

Senate Unanimously Approves Official Business-Appropriate Dress Code

September 29, 2023
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login below or Register Now.

Lost password?

Register Now!

Already registered? Login.

A password will be e-mailed to you.