In July, I suggested that Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to uphold the individual mandate as a tax in NFIB v. Sebelius was largely consistent with the overall judicial approach he’s demonstrated since joining the Court. I have expanded this argument into an essay that will be included as a chapter in the forthcoming book The […]
Archive | Individual Mandate
Michael Greve on the Proper Meaning of “Proper” in the Necessary and Proper Clause
By Ilya Somin on November 5, 2012 8:00 pm in Federalism, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Necessary and Proper
At the Law and Liberty Blog, my George Mason colleague Michael Greve has posted an insightful commentary on my forthcoming article analyzing the proper meaning of “proper.” Michael agrees with my conclusion that the individual health insurance mandate was improper, but takes issue with some of my reasoning: My colleague Ilya Somin has penned a […]
Free Market Alternatives to the ACA
Back in December, I criticized the false dichotomy set up by those who claim that the only available alternative to the Obama health care plan is some form of socialized medicine. In this recent essay, University of Chicago economist John Cochrane gives an excellent summary of free market alternatives to the ACA that can cut […]
My Forthcoming Article on the Individual Mandate and the Meaning of “Proper” in the Necessary and Proper Clause
By Ilya Somin on October 29, 2012 1:40 pm in Federalism, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Necessary and Proper
My forthcoming book chapter, “The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of ‘Proper,’” is now available on SSRN. It is forthcoming in The Health Care Cases, edited by Gillian Metzger, Trevor Morrison, and Nathaniel Persily, eds. (Oxford University Press). The book is a collection of essays on NFIB v. Sebelius, the case where the Court […]
Ninth Circuit Treats Supreme Court Individual Mandate Necessary and Proper Clause Ruling as a Binding Precedent
Co-blogger Jonathan Adler recently posted on United States v. Elk Shoulder, a recent Ninth Circuit decision which may be the first court of appeals case interepreting the Supreme Court’s individual health insurance mandate decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. When NFIB came down, some commentators argued that Chief Justice Roberts’ conclusion that the mandate was not […]
Dogs that Didn’t Bark in Tonight’s Presidential Debate
By Ilya Somin on October 3, 2012 11:22 pm in Elections, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Obama, Political Ignorance
In addition to Willow, there were two major dogs that didn’t bark during tonight’s presidential debate. First, even though the debate was supposed to focus on domestic policy, neither the moderator nor the candidates ever focused on some of the most important domestic issues on which the president can have a big impact: issues such […]
Upcoming Appearances at the University of Minnesota and the University of Tulsa
For those who may be interested, I am going to be speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School and the University of Tulsa this week. On Wednesday at 12:15 PM, I will be debating University of Minnesota Professor Fred Morrison about the Supreme Court’s health care decision at the University of Minnesota Law School, […]
CBO: Six Million People to Pay Individual Mandate Penalty Tax in 2016
The Congressional Budget Office has just released new estimates of the number of people who will be subject to the individual mandate penalty tax for failing to obtain qualifying health insurance in 2016. According to CBO’s new analysis, the penalty tax will be paid by six million people. The penalty tax will generate an estimated […]
Debate over the Individual Mandate Decision at the University of Toledo
This Thursday at noon, I will be debating the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the individual health insurance mandate, at the University of Toledo College of Law. Toledo law professor Rebecca Zietlow, author of several important articles on the health care law and related issues, will be defending the constitutionality of the mandate. For my […]
How to Respond to the Individual Mandate Decision
My George Mason colleague Eric Claeys has an insightful piece at the National Review website on how opponents of the individual mandate should respond to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding it: In NFIB v. Sebelius, handed down last month, the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) against several constitutional challenges. […]
Legitimacy, Popularity, and the Individual Mandate Decision
By Ilya Somin on July 13, 2012 5:59 pm in Federalism, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Public Opinion
In response to my post arguing that Chief Justice Roberts’ vote in the individual mandate decision failed to enhance the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, co-blogger Orin Kerr argues that Roberts may have been motivated by a different definition of legitimacy, one seemingly unrelated to popularity: If Roberts is thought to have been influenced by public pressure, […]
The Impact of the Individual Mandate Decision on the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
By Ilya Somin on July 13, 2012 12:57 pm in Federalism, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Public Opinion
Various leaks suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in the individual mandate case in order to protect his own and the Supreme Court’s reputation and enhance their legitimacy. Whether or not that was his objective, it is interesting to ask whether the goal was achieved. Did the decision enhance the Court’s legitimacy […]
Chief Justice Roberts and Constitutional Avoidance
At SCOTUSreport.com, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz has an excellent post on Chief Justice Roberts’ use of the canon of constitutional avoidance in NFIB v. Sebelius. As Professor Rosenkranz notes, “The Chief Justice’s account of the canon is accurate, but his application of it is exceedingly odd.” Specifically, the Chief used the canon not to resolve a […]
Left, Right, and Judicial Review
By Ilya Somin on July 12, 2012 5:43 pm in Conservatism, Constitutional History, Constitutional Theory, Federalism, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Originalism
Various commentators, such as co-blogger Orin Kerr and Joel Alicea argue that the individual mandate case represents a sea change in conservative attitudes to judicial review. Whereas before conservatives supposedly opposed most judicial invalidation of statutes, now they emphasize the need to strike down laws that can’t be justified on originalist grounds. Orin also suggests […]
“Statesmanship” and the Individual Mandate Decision
In this recent post, political scientist Steven Teles argues that Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to uphold the individual mandate was motivated by “statesmanship”: [M]y guess is that Roberts would have joined a decision more or less striking down the mandate but severing it from the rest of the law, but he couldn’t get the […]