This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services was copied or moved into National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida was copied or moved into National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I propose that the two articles Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida be merged into this article; the SCOTUS has decided on NFIB v. Sebelius and mentioned the other two as footnotes. See here. SPat talk 16:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I support a merge, as any information regarding the Supreme Court's decision is identical for all three cases. With the SC merging the cases, I believe we should do the same, in creating a single, convenient article without splitting the information into separate pages. Reywas92 Talk 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Merge. The three cases were decided together, and they should all be in one article. Fullmetal2887 ( discuss me) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this apparently deals with a tax, should this go under Category:Taxation in the United States?
Before putting it straightaway into the article's infobox, I'd like to first post here a summary I wrote of the court's decisions in these cases, and ask if anybody has any suggestions for improving it. It runs a bit long, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything:
26 U.S.C. §5000A, which levies a "shared responsibility payment" on certain individuals not possessing health insurance, functionally operates as a tax, rendering the penalty valid under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Commerce Clause may not presuppose involvement in commerce in order to regulate the inactivity of individuals, thus limiting the enforcement of such mandates to that which is allowed in the tax code. The Necessary & Proper Clause does not grant Congress any additional powers in and of itself, and thus cannot support the mandate. 42 U.S.C. §1396d(a), PPACA's extension of Medicaid eligibility, constitutes a "transformative" change in the scope of Medicaid's provisions, and is therefore severable from the program's pre-existing framework. §1396d(c), which may cancel all federal Medicaid funds sent to states that do not implement the expansion, fails the coercion test for federal regulation of joint state-federal programs, and is an invalid use of the Spending Power. A tax must be directly labeled as such by Congress to fall under the purview of the Anti-Injunction Act if its applicability is not otherwise endorsed. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Since other coercion tests exist, such as the one for religious symbols on public grounds first articulated here, I thought it useful to include the bit about it concerning joint federal-state programs. Perhaps other readers may think it unnecessary & implied in context? Alternatively, it could read §1396d(c)...fails Dole's coercion test, thereby invalidating Congress's use of the Spending Power. I'm also unsure how many links to include within it, if any. For example, should the Anti-Injunction Act be linked to there, when there is another link to it later in the article? Does the fact the infobox is at the top mean it takes priority with respect to WP:Overcite? 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Another potential wording, from User:Fullmetal2887: The individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is tantamount to a tax, and therefore constitutional; however, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. Congress may not, in general, regulate commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA.
The above has the benefit of being shorter than my suggestion. However, I think it is important to also include the Court's new interpretation of the more general applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act, as well as it's new views of the elastic clause, which appears to have been restored to the position it held under McCulloch. I also think that Roberts & the 4 conservative dissenters were very explicit that inactivity cannot be regulated by the Commerce Clause. Can you clarify what your wording was considering with the qualification the the ban was just "in general?" 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA is tantamount to a tax, and therefore constitutional. Congress may not, in general, regulate commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power, but such an expansion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause is not a “proper” means for making the PPACA’s other reforms effective. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by forcing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. --P3Y229 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While I understand that the opinion itself used the phrase "extraordinary ability", it does come off as rather subjective, and I don't think it's necessary here anyway. "Unprecedented" would have been objective, "extraordinary" is not. I would also clarify for readers which enumerated power the elastic clause was being suggested for. Describing the mandate, I think it a little better to describe it as being "functionally" a tax rather than "tantamount", because while they both convey a similar meaning, the opinion uses the phrase "functional approach", as first used in United States v. Constantine. Seeing as this is the very first case to enforce it, I would also include why the Medicaid expansion penalty was voided- it failed the coercion test. I believe it is also customary to include the Circuit Court the primary case came from (in this case, the 11th circuit), and how this decision compares to theirs. While I would include them in the article, I suppose the exact number of the laws (e.g. §5000A) isn't necessary here.
So my proposed wording (using parts from above) would be:
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under that act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of the taxing power. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Nstrauss has brought to our attention in the below section that the consensus of 5 justices regarding the Commerce & elastic clauses may not be binding. So I have, for now, removed the following sentences from my proposed wording until this is cleared up: Congress may not regulate (individual or all?) commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate vests Congress with the ability to create the "necessary" predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power, but such an expansion of federal power under the elastic clause is not a “proper” means (under the Commerce Clause) for making the PPACA’s other reforms effective. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 19:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For the reasons above mentioned I propose this holding version:
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of the taxing power. A court majority consisting of five judges found that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause because the clause applies only to regulation of commercial activity and hence Congress cannot regulate commercial inactivity. The same majority found for different reasons that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause: Either because the individual mandate is not a “proper” use of congressional power under the Commerce Clause or because congressional action violates the sovereignty of the States and background principle of enumerated (and hence limited) federal power. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. --P3Y229 22:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 ( talk • contribs)
I've found an earlier case for the existence of a "coercion test" for the Spending Clause- Steward Machine Company v. Davis, which came down 50 years before Dole. I'm inclined to change the link in the holding because I think it's usually best to go with the earliest "precedent-setting" case if possible, and that Wiki page happens to be more detailed than the one for Dole. On the other hand, Dole is more recent so it's probably more referenced & discussed in blogs, classrooms, etc. than Steward, which I hadn't heard of until recently. Any objections to this change? 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If there are not, I would like to propose the following replacement for the part involving the Medicaid expansion ruling. This integrates the new two-pronged 'test' for coercion- 1.) Threatened (or explicit) cuts may not have too distant a relation to what Congress wants the states to do, and 2.) the quantitative impact of the threatened cut(s), as a percent of state budgets, may not be too severe. Roberts declined to draw the line for #2, but it would be somewhere between .5% (from Dole) and 10% (the smallest portion Medicaid contributed to a given state budget).
Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may only withhold from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the PPACA. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
To complete the preliminary holding version I drafted this fill in version, taking into account the version by talk and my above comment to it:
In order for someone or something to be subject to the Commerce Clause, there must be an “activity”, because the power to regulate “commerce” presupposes that there is some commerce going on. Congress has the power to regulate actual commerce, but it may not call commerce into being so that it can be regulated nor use the commerce clause to compel persons to engage in commerce. Any power exercised under the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be self-standing, but must be an incident of some other power which the Constitution grants to Congress. Although necessary for the financial viability of the Act, the individual mandate is not a proper use of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may only withhold from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the PPACA.
I would like to make clear that Roberts' opinion is only the "Opinion of the Court" with respect to Parts I and II (introduction) and III-C (applicability of Spending Clause to individual mandate). This means that if there is to be a section called "Opinion of the Court" then the other stuff (Commerce Clause, Medicaid provision) must be moved into another another section. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to rename the section "Roberts Opinion" and indicate which sections were the Opinion of the Court and which ones were his own. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is not with the label "Opinion of the Court" but with the description of it as a "5-4 decision", when in fact the Court held 9-0 that the anti-injunction act didn't apply, held 5-4 that the mandate was constitutional for various reasons, and 7-2 that the Medicaid expansion penalty was not constitutional. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I hate to say it but 68.58.63.22, Zzyzx11, and Bmclaughlin9 are all incorrect here. Strictly speaking only parts I, II, and III-C were the Opinion of the Court. That is what the Court said on page 1 of the opinion, so that is a fact. From a practical perspective lawyers will be arguing about the precedential value the remaining portions of the opinion, but that doesn't change the facts. There are many decisions by the Supreme Court that have no Opinion of the Court at all, just a judgment. For example, the Court released United States v. Alvarez on the same day but gave no Opinion of the Court, hence there is no reference to the "Opinion of the Court" in that WP article. In this case, the other conservatives could have joined Roberts on the other parts of his motion to make his full opinion the Opinion of the Court but they chose not to. Some background for their decision is in this breaking news story. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nstrauss here. Quote from Slip opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the
Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect
to Parts I, II, and III–C...
Presenting other parts of Roberts opinion as “Opinion of the Court” is misleading. Yes, dissenters agreed with him about Commerce Clause, but they did not formally joined his opinion. At the top of every page here is a note about what is “Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.” and what is “Opinion of the Court”.-- В и к и T 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Who's on first? Perhaps we need to take these one at a time.
Bmclaughlin9, I have a general objection to your analysis here. We can talk all we want about how many justices supported or believed what, and what is binding for future cases, but that doesn't change the fact that, as the Court said explicitly, only Parts I, II, and III-C of Justice Roberts' opinion are the Opinion of the Court. The analysis you've started here is a good one but it belongs in a separate talk thread so as not to tangle the issues. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article that talks about how the Commerce & elastic clause issues are effectively dicta rather than a holding. Part III-C, unquestionably part of the court's opinion, includes the sentence “The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity.” So it's not officially a holding, but Roberts writes as if it is, and the 4 liberals who joined him acknowledge that's the case, even if they may not agree. Again, is this just all a mistake? If this is actually dictum rather than an official, binding opinion, then how do we treat it?
One case that comes to mind that was made famous because of it's dictum is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The holding listed in the infobox there describes it (as is widely acknowledged) as the case that established the idea of corporate personhood, or at least confirmed its entrenchment. Just like the health care cases, the decision was technically rendered on a different basis (here the taxing rather than commerce power, in Santa Clara the CA state tax code, rather than the 14th Amendment). It nevertheless set a precedent every court since has followed, as acknowledged by some Justices.
I'm the last one to suggest our mainstream media is always completely truthful, but this is one takeaway from this case that seems to have been repeated in many places, and it's hard for us to ignore that completely. I don't think anyone can deny that, whether they graced it with their official seal of approval or not, there is a majority on the Court that believes in an activity/inactivity distinction for the consideration of commercial regulation. Although this is now widely known, we cannot integrate speculation into the article as to how lower courts will act on this knowledge. But until one of these conservative justices retires, everyone now knows there is a majority to strike down that type of commercial regulation, and it's hard to see that not shaping future case law and congressional actions. For that reason, and for how the 'court' chose to phrase that sentence in Part III-C, I believe it deserves some mention under the section "Opinion of the Court", if not the infobox. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 10:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
We are attempting to report a complex decision re multiple issues with shifting majorities using an outline better suited to simpler cases. Would the user be better served by an issue-by-issue presentation? Anti-injunction, then individual mandate, then Medicaid extension penalty. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 12:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the source/reference of Ginsburg's phrase:
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand the background section case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and need some help in this regard.
National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al was a merger of several cases among them The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius. The background case section states "The National Federation of Independent Business sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services." There is however no source mentioned. I found this source [1] which states: "The case currently before the Court, Florida v. HHS, is a consolidation of two separate lawsuits from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius and Florida et al. v. HHS. In the first case, two individuals and the NFIB, a nonprofit organization that represents small businesses, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, arguing that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to enact the individual mandate provisions of the ACA. In the second case, Florida and twenty-five other states sued, arguing that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion is unconstitutionally coercive on state governments."
SCOTUS's Date, Proceedings and Orders site for National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al [2] shows that the case numbers for The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius and Florida et al. v. HHS are 11-11021 and 11-11067. The site states that both cases were decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 12, 2011. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Monthly Log site confirms this and makes clear that there is one judgement for both cases. [3] The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [4] states that its judgement are "Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida".
At this point I reached a dead end. I cannot find out when and where the National Federation of Independent Businesses allegedly sued Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. I say allegedly because the NFIB issued a PDF file in which it stated "On May 14, 2010, Dan Danner, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, America’s leading small‐business association, announced NFIB would join the then 20 states (now 26) in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of PPACA." [5] This quote and the prior research, esspecially my first source, leads to two questions:
1.) Did the National Federation of Independent Businesses really sue Kathleen Sebelius? I just ask myself: Did the NFIB sue Kathleen Sebelius in one lawsuit and joined the states in another lawsuit or did the NFIB not sue Kathleen Sebelius and joined instead the states in their lawsuit?
2.) Any suggestions how to find out when and where the National Federation of Independent Businesses allegedly sued Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida?
Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 00:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I'd just like to flag that we have an internal inconsistency, with the act being called "PPACA" in some places and "the PPACA" in others. The PPACA page has the same inconsistency. I did a quick Google News search and noticed that most (but not all) newspapers are calling it PPACA, not "the" PPACA. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the holding in the infobox about Medicaid, with the comment: "change infobox holding. Only the Court can hold something. Medicaid opinion was not opinion of the Court." Lord Roem reverted with the comment: "Medicaid 'judgment' at least *was* determined". Lord Roem, I don't understand this statement. There was no "judgment" on Medicaid. Please explain. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find commentary that supports your position but there's certainly no consensus. I did a quick (far from exhaustive) search and the first opinion I could find on the subject was this one from renowned Stanford Law prof Hank Greely. He wrote:
On the other hand, the precedents are not very important. Some of them, in a technical sense, are not even precedents. The Chief Justice’s positions on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and even the Medicaid Expansion are not part of “the Opinion of the Court” because none of them got five votes. Future Courts are not bound by them. Now, if the issues arise again soon, that won’t matter, because a majority of the justices did accept the Chief’s positions on those points. But that won’t be true fifty years from now, or even, necessarily, five or ten. I don’t understand why the joint dissenters did not join the Chief’s opinion on Sections III(A) and IV(A) to give him a majority.
-- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the most thorough analysis of the issue I've read. The upshot is that whether the portions of Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause and Medicaid contain holdings is an open question. I found the post a couple of weeks ago; there may have been further analysis on Volokh Conspiracy since then. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have gone stale, so I'm removing the Medicaid holding. If anyone wants to revert and restart the debate then I'm fine with that. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest adding a sentence or two to the section Opinions on Medicaid expansion that briefly explains the controversy, with a ref to [1]. I'd also add a footnote to the infobox #3 with a link to that section, but leave it in. As a practical matter, with seven justices essentially agreeing, this is part of the Court's ruling; neither the administration nor the lower courts are likely to read it any other way. -- agr ( talk)
Lord Roem, if you are reverting without any adding any discussion at this point then you're just engaging in an edit war. Please have a seat at the table and let's keep the ball rolling. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We need some idea on what links to include. Commentary and analysis is very broad on this case, but we don't want to have all articles on the case linked. That would be unworkable. Per policy, we probably should include the most comprehensive sources. By 'comprehensive', I mean sources that give a good overview of all the arguments on all sides.
Thoughts? -- Lord Roem ( talk) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following sources:
--P3Y229 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 ( talk • contribs)
I really don't care that much about which links stay in or out. I just don't want a bunch of legal spam on this (or really any) article. Usually, a link to the decision and the oral argument is the good bar to set. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of the recent edits by 71.161.210.246, I was wondering if Wikipedia has a grammatical standard for the use of apostrophes for the possessive form of singular nouns that end in -s? I had always been taught to add an 's regardless of the noun's ending, with an exception being made for certain "ancient" persons like Jesus & Socrates. So the Roberts opinion would be referred to as Roberts's opinion, rather than Roberts' opinion. After a bit of research, it would seem that this rule is not as firm as I had thought.
Here are a few opinions for anyone undecided on the matter to consider:
Personally, it seems this is an example of the English language becoming more "simplified", with a rule being modified for the sake of convenience. An apostrophe was designed to replace just one letter, not two. The Germanic tradition was to make all words plural by adding an -es, with the apostrophe later replacing the 'e'.
Ironically, as Wiki notes, this very Court has informally "ruled" on the matter (of course falling upon a 5-4 divide), with the majority favoring the extra s. So perhaps we should go with their opinion in an article about another decision of theirs?
Of course, whatever is decided, it is most important to stick to it so there is consistency throughout the article. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple articles that state that justice Roberts wrote both the opinion of the court and a large portion of the joint dissent, but there is no mention of this in the wiki article here. Some examples:
There might be too much emphasis on the Crawford article. That article suggests that the four dissenters (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) did not join Robert's opinion because they had "parted ways". But these sources say that Roberts actually wrote much of the joint dissent before switching sides, and the dissenters just picked that up and finished it. The salon.com article directly responds to the Crawford's article, with an update from "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process" stating that Roberts actually wrote both opinions. Given the plausibility of this view, it should be included in the Speculation section and perhaps be given as much length as Crawford's source. -- Abstractematics ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Added a blurb at the end about ongoing litigation related to NFIB v. Sebelius. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 03:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The audio from the three days of arguments and the opinions have recently been released by the National Archives and I have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. There are 5 separate files, all available in commons:Category:US National Archives series: Audio Recordings of Oral Arguments, compiled 1955 - 2012. These, or clips, might be useful to this article, so I wanted to let the contributors here know. The files could also use categorizing on Commons, if anyone is interested. Dominic· t 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain who Kathleen Sebelius is, there should be some information/explanation.-- occono ( talk) 01:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On June 10 Mfuzia added the following paragraph under Academic Commentary:
Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind™ conducted research on the public's constitutional perspective by asking registered voters about key legal issues brought up by PPACA litigation through two surveys based upon a random sampling of the United States population. The authors, Bruce G. Peabody and Peter J. Woolley contend that, through public response on this case, that despite claims of an ignorant and uninformed public, the masses can be confident, properly conflicted, and principled when considering major controversies and dilemmas.[80] Rather than polling the public on raw personal opinion, the study conducted inquired into the random voters legal judgement on PPACA constitutionality. For example, 56% of Americans (as of February 2012) deemed that Congress does not have the legal right to require everyone to have health insurance, while 34% believed that such a mandate was legally permissable.
I removed it with the comment: "removed PublicMind research as not about the subject. It's about the public's perception of the constitution, or perhaps PPACA, but not about NFIB v. Sebelius".
Mfuzia restored it (re-reverted) without comment.
Mfuzia, most of this material isn't notable, and what might be notable belongs in the PPACA article. Please respond and please do your best to refrain from edit warring. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
NFIB v. Sebelius did not uphold "most provisions" of Obamacare as stated in the beginning of the article, merely the individual mandate. The court did not pass judgment on any of the other provisions, except the state medicare expansion (which it held unconstitutionally coercive). The rest of the law was not overturned, but no decision on its constitutionality was determined. Indeed, several cases are currently working their way through the courts on various other parts, like religious contraceptive mandates, etc. Jaykest1 ( talk) 13:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual text of the SCOTUS decision uses the word "unconstitutional" to describe the individual mandate and the Medicaid penalty. SCOTUS does not merely say, "improper" or "invalid". The majority opinion explicitly states an individual mandate penalty is unconstitutional (while an individual tax is not) and explicitly states "the Act’s 'Medicaid expansion' is unconstitutional in threatening states with loss of existing Medicaid funding". There's no reason for this article to obscure the ruling behind weaker language. I propose using the terminology which literally appears in the ruling by modifying following passage to read...
A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, though they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's spending power as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding. William Frantz ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services was copied or moved into National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida was copied or moved into National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I propose that the two articles Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida be merged into this article; the SCOTUS has decided on NFIB v. Sebelius and mentioned the other two as footnotes. See here. SPat talk 16:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I support a merge, as any information regarding the Supreme Court's decision is identical for all three cases. With the SC merging the cases, I believe we should do the same, in creating a single, convenient article without splitting the information into separate pages. Reywas92 Talk 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Merge. The three cases were decided together, and they should all be in one article. Fullmetal2887 ( discuss me) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this apparently deals with a tax, should this go under Category:Taxation in the United States?
Before putting it straightaway into the article's infobox, I'd like to first post here a summary I wrote of the court's decisions in these cases, and ask if anybody has any suggestions for improving it. It runs a bit long, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything:
26 U.S.C. §5000A, which levies a "shared responsibility payment" on certain individuals not possessing health insurance, functionally operates as a tax, rendering the penalty valid under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Commerce Clause may not presuppose involvement in commerce in order to regulate the inactivity of individuals, thus limiting the enforcement of such mandates to that which is allowed in the tax code. The Necessary & Proper Clause does not grant Congress any additional powers in and of itself, and thus cannot support the mandate. 42 U.S.C. §1396d(a), PPACA's extension of Medicaid eligibility, constitutes a "transformative" change in the scope of Medicaid's provisions, and is therefore severable from the program's pre-existing framework. §1396d(c), which may cancel all federal Medicaid funds sent to states that do not implement the expansion, fails the coercion test for federal regulation of joint state-federal programs, and is an invalid use of the Spending Power. A tax must be directly labeled as such by Congress to fall under the purview of the Anti-Injunction Act if its applicability is not otherwise endorsed. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Since other coercion tests exist, such as the one for religious symbols on public grounds first articulated here, I thought it useful to include the bit about it concerning joint federal-state programs. Perhaps other readers may think it unnecessary & implied in context? Alternatively, it could read §1396d(c)...fails Dole's coercion test, thereby invalidating Congress's use of the Spending Power. I'm also unsure how many links to include within it, if any. For example, should the Anti-Injunction Act be linked to there, when there is another link to it later in the article? Does the fact the infobox is at the top mean it takes priority with respect to WP:Overcite? 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Another potential wording, from User:Fullmetal2887: The individual mandate provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is tantamount to a tax, and therefore constitutional; however, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. Congress may not, in general, regulate commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA.
The above has the benefit of being shorter than my suggestion. However, I think it is important to also include the Court's new interpretation of the more general applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act, as well as it's new views of the elastic clause, which appears to have been restored to the position it held under McCulloch. I also think that Roberts & the 4 conservative dissenters were very explicit that inactivity cannot be regulated by the Commerce Clause. Can you clarify what your wording was considering with the qualification the the ban was just "in general?" 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA is tantamount to a tax, and therefore constitutional. Congress may not, in general, regulate commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power, but such an expansion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause is not a “proper” means for making the PPACA’s other reforms effective. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by forcing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. --P3Y229 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
While I understand that the opinion itself used the phrase "extraordinary ability", it does come off as rather subjective, and I don't think it's necessary here anyway. "Unprecedented" would have been objective, "extraordinary" is not. I would also clarify for readers which enumerated power the elastic clause was being suggested for. Describing the mandate, I think it a little better to describe it as being "functionally" a tax rather than "tantamount", because while they both convey a similar meaning, the opinion uses the phrase "functional approach", as first used in United States v. Constantine. Seeing as this is the very first case to enforce it, I would also include why the Medicaid expansion penalty was voided- it failed the coercion test. I believe it is also customary to include the Circuit Court the primary case came from (in this case, the 11th circuit), and how this decision compares to theirs. While I would include them in the article, I suppose the exact number of the laws (e.g. §5000A) isn't necessary here.
So my proposed wording (using parts from above) would be:
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under that act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of the taxing power. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Nstrauss has brought to our attention in the below section that the consensus of 5 justices regarding the Commerce & elastic clauses may not be binding. So I have, for now, removed the following sentences from my proposed wording until this is cleared up: Congress may not regulate (individual or all?) commercial inactivity under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate vests Congress with the ability to create the "necessary" predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power, but such an expansion of federal power under the elastic clause is not a “proper” means (under the Commerce Clause) for making the PPACA’s other reforms effective. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 19:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For the reasons above mentioned I propose this holding version:
The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate provision of the PPACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of the taxing power. A court majority consisting of five judges found that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause because the clause applies only to regulation of commercial activity and hence Congress cannot regulate commercial inactivity. The same majority found for different reasons that the individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause: Either because the individual mandate is not a “proper” use of congressional power under the Commerce Clause or because congressional action violates the sovereignty of the States and background principle of enumerated (and hence limited) federal power. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into an all-or-nothing choice by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion. Congress may not withhold all Medicaid funding from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision, but rather only the new funding provided under the PPACA. Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. --P3Y229 22:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 ( talk • contribs)
I've found an earlier case for the existence of a "coercion test" for the Spending Clause- Steward Machine Company v. Davis, which came down 50 years before Dole. I'm inclined to change the link in the holding because I think it's usually best to go with the earliest "precedent-setting" case if possible, and that Wiki page happens to be more detailed than the one for Dole. On the other hand, Dole is more recent so it's probably more referenced & discussed in blogs, classrooms, etc. than Steward, which I hadn't heard of until recently. Any objections to this change? 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If there are not, I would like to propose the following replacement for the part involving the Medicaid expansion ruling. This integrates the new two-pronged 'test' for coercion- 1.) Threatened (or explicit) cuts may not have too distant a relation to what Congress wants the states to do, and 2.) the quantitative impact of the threatened cut(s), as a percent of state budgets, may not be too severe. Roberts declined to draw the line for #2, but it would be somewhere between .5% (from Dole) and 10% (the smallest portion Medicaid contributed to a given state budget).
Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may only withhold from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the PPACA. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
To complete the preliminary holding version I drafted this fill in version, taking into account the version by talk and my above comment to it:
In order for someone or something to be subject to the Commerce Clause, there must be an “activity”, because the power to regulate “commerce” presupposes that there is some commerce going on. Congress has the power to regulate actual commerce, but it may not call commerce into being so that it can be regulated nor use the commerce clause to compel persons to engage in commerce. Any power exercised under the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be self-standing, but must be an incident of some other power which the Constitution grants to Congress. Although necessary for the financial viability of the Act, the individual mandate is not a proper use of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may only withhold from states refusing to comply with the PPACA's Medicaid expansion provision the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the PPACA.
I would like to make clear that Roberts' opinion is only the "Opinion of the Court" with respect to Parts I and II (introduction) and III-C (applicability of Spending Clause to individual mandate). This means that if there is to be a section called "Opinion of the Court" then the other stuff (Commerce Clause, Medicaid provision) must be moved into another another section. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to rename the section "Roberts Opinion" and indicate which sections were the Opinion of the Court and which ones were his own. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is not with the label "Opinion of the Court" but with the description of it as a "5-4 decision", when in fact the Court held 9-0 that the anti-injunction act didn't apply, held 5-4 that the mandate was constitutional for various reasons, and 7-2 that the Medicaid expansion penalty was not constitutional. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I hate to say it but 68.58.63.22, Zzyzx11, and Bmclaughlin9 are all incorrect here. Strictly speaking only parts I, II, and III-C were the Opinion of the Court. That is what the Court said on page 1 of the opinion, so that is a fact. From a practical perspective lawyers will be arguing about the precedential value the remaining portions of the opinion, but that doesn't change the facts. There are many decisions by the Supreme Court that have no Opinion of the Court at all, just a judgment. For example, the Court released United States v. Alvarez on the same day but gave no Opinion of the Court, hence there is no reference to the "Opinion of the Court" in that WP article. In this case, the other conservatives could have joined Roberts on the other parts of his motion to make his full opinion the Opinion of the Court but they chose not to. Some background for their decision is in this breaking news story. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nstrauss here. Quote from Slip opinion:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the
Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect
to Parts I, II, and III–C...
Presenting other parts of Roberts opinion as “Opinion of the Court” is misleading. Yes, dissenters agreed with him about Commerce Clause, but they did not formally joined his opinion. At the top of every page here is a note about what is “Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.” and what is “Opinion of the Court”.-- В и к и T 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Who's on first? Perhaps we need to take these one at a time.
Bmclaughlin9, I have a general objection to your analysis here. We can talk all we want about how many justices supported or believed what, and what is binding for future cases, but that doesn't change the fact that, as the Court said explicitly, only Parts I, II, and III-C of Justice Roberts' opinion are the Opinion of the Court. The analysis you've started here is a good one but it belongs in a separate talk thread so as not to tangle the issues. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting article that talks about how the Commerce & elastic clause issues are effectively dicta rather than a holding. Part III-C, unquestionably part of the court's opinion, includes the sentence “The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity.” So it's not officially a holding, but Roberts writes as if it is, and the 4 liberals who joined him acknowledge that's the case, even if they may not agree. Again, is this just all a mistake? If this is actually dictum rather than an official, binding opinion, then how do we treat it?
One case that comes to mind that was made famous because of it's dictum is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The holding listed in the infobox there describes it (as is widely acknowledged) as the case that established the idea of corporate personhood, or at least confirmed its entrenchment. Just like the health care cases, the decision was technically rendered on a different basis (here the taxing rather than commerce power, in Santa Clara the CA state tax code, rather than the 14th Amendment). It nevertheless set a precedent every court since has followed, as acknowledged by some Justices.
I'm the last one to suggest our mainstream media is always completely truthful, but this is one takeaway from this case that seems to have been repeated in many places, and it's hard for us to ignore that completely. I don't think anyone can deny that, whether they graced it with their official seal of approval or not, there is a majority on the Court that believes in an activity/inactivity distinction for the consideration of commercial regulation. Although this is now widely known, we cannot integrate speculation into the article as to how lower courts will act on this knowledge. But until one of these conservative justices retires, everyone now knows there is a majority to strike down that type of commercial regulation, and it's hard to see that not shaping future case law and congressional actions. For that reason, and for how the 'court' chose to phrase that sentence in Part III-C, I believe it deserves some mention under the section "Opinion of the Court", if not the infobox. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 10:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
We are attempting to report a complex decision re multiple issues with shifting majorities using an outline better suited to simpler cases. Would the user be better served by an issue-by-issue presentation? Anti-injunction, then individual mandate, then Medicaid extension penalty. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 12:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the source/reference of Ginsburg's phrase:
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand the background section case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and need some help in this regard.
National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al was a merger of several cases among them The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius. The background case section states "The National Federation of Independent Business sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services." There is however no source mentioned. I found this source [1] which states: "The case currently before the Court, Florida v. HHS, is a consolidation of two separate lawsuits from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius and Florida et al. v. HHS. In the first case, two individuals and the NFIB, a nonprofit organization that represents small businesses, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, arguing that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to enact the individual mandate provisions of the ACA. In the second case, Florida and twenty-five other states sued, arguing that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion is unconstitutionally coercive on state governments."
SCOTUS's Date, Proceedings and Orders site for National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al [2] shows that the case numbers for The National Federation of Independent Businesses [NFIB] v. Sebelius and Florida et al. v. HHS are 11-11021 and 11-11067. The site states that both cases were decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 12, 2011. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Monthly Log site confirms this and makes clear that there is one judgement for both cases. [3] The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [4] states that its judgement are "Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida".
At this point I reached a dead end. I cannot find out when and where the National Federation of Independent Businesses allegedly sued Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. I say allegedly because the NFIB issued a PDF file in which it stated "On May 14, 2010, Dan Danner, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, America’s leading small‐business association, announced NFIB would join the then 20 states (now 26) in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of PPACA." [5] This quote and the prior research, esspecially my first source, leads to two questions:
1.) Did the National Federation of Independent Businesses really sue Kathleen Sebelius? I just ask myself: Did the NFIB sue Kathleen Sebelius in one lawsuit and joined the states in another lawsuit or did the NFIB not sue Kathleen Sebelius and joined instead the states in their lawsuit?
2.) Any suggestions how to find out when and where the National Federation of Independent Businesses allegedly sued Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida?
Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 00:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I'd just like to flag that we have an internal inconsistency, with the act being called "PPACA" in some places and "the PPACA" in others. The PPACA page has the same inconsistency. I did a quick Google News search and noticed that most (but not all) newspapers are calling it PPACA, not "the" PPACA. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the holding in the infobox about Medicaid, with the comment: "change infobox holding. Only the Court can hold something. Medicaid opinion was not opinion of the Court." Lord Roem reverted with the comment: "Medicaid 'judgment' at least *was* determined". Lord Roem, I don't understand this statement. There was no "judgment" on Medicaid. Please explain. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find commentary that supports your position but there's certainly no consensus. I did a quick (far from exhaustive) search and the first opinion I could find on the subject was this one from renowned Stanford Law prof Hank Greely. He wrote:
On the other hand, the precedents are not very important. Some of them, in a technical sense, are not even precedents. The Chief Justice’s positions on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and even the Medicaid Expansion are not part of “the Opinion of the Court” because none of them got five votes. Future Courts are not bound by them. Now, if the issues arise again soon, that won’t matter, because a majority of the justices did accept the Chief’s positions on those points. But that won’t be true fifty years from now, or even, necessarily, five or ten. I don’t understand why the joint dissenters did not join the Chief’s opinion on Sections III(A) and IV(A) to give him a majority.
-- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the most thorough analysis of the issue I've read. The upshot is that whether the portions of Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause and Medicaid contain holdings is an open question. I found the post a couple of weeks ago; there may have been further analysis on Volokh Conspiracy since then. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have gone stale, so I'm removing the Medicaid holding. If anyone wants to revert and restart the debate then I'm fine with that. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest adding a sentence or two to the section Opinions on Medicaid expansion that briefly explains the controversy, with a ref to [1]. I'd also add a footnote to the infobox #3 with a link to that section, but leave it in. As a practical matter, with seven justices essentially agreeing, this is part of the Court's ruling; neither the administration nor the lower courts are likely to read it any other way. -- agr ( talk)
Lord Roem, if you are reverting without any adding any discussion at this point then you're just engaging in an edit war. Please have a seat at the table and let's keep the ball rolling. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
We need some idea on what links to include. Commentary and analysis is very broad on this case, but we don't want to have all articles on the case linked. That would be unworkable. Per policy, we probably should include the most comprehensive sources. By 'comprehensive', I mean sources that give a good overview of all the arguments on all sides.
Thoughts? -- Lord Roem ( talk) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose the following sources:
--P3Y229 10:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 ( talk • contribs)
I really don't care that much about which links stay in or out. I just don't want a bunch of legal spam on this (or really any) article. Usually, a link to the decision and the oral argument is the good bar to set. -- Lord Roem ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of the recent edits by 71.161.210.246, I was wondering if Wikipedia has a grammatical standard for the use of apostrophes for the possessive form of singular nouns that end in -s? I had always been taught to add an 's regardless of the noun's ending, with an exception being made for certain "ancient" persons like Jesus & Socrates. So the Roberts opinion would be referred to as Roberts's opinion, rather than Roberts' opinion. After a bit of research, it would seem that this rule is not as firm as I had thought.
Here are a few opinions for anyone undecided on the matter to consider:
Personally, it seems this is an example of the English language becoming more "simplified", with a rule being modified for the sake of convenience. An apostrophe was designed to replace just one letter, not two. The Germanic tradition was to make all words plural by adding an -es, with the apostrophe later replacing the 'e'.
Ironically, as Wiki notes, this very Court has informally "ruled" on the matter (of course falling upon a 5-4 divide), with the majority favoring the extra s. So perhaps we should go with their opinion in an article about another decision of theirs?
Of course, whatever is decided, it is most important to stick to it so there is consistency throughout the article. 68.58.63.22 ( talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple articles that state that justice Roberts wrote both the opinion of the court and a large portion of the joint dissent, but there is no mention of this in the wiki article here. Some examples:
There might be too much emphasis on the Crawford article. That article suggests that the four dissenters (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) did not join Robert's opinion because they had "parted ways". But these sources say that Roberts actually wrote much of the joint dissent before switching sides, and the dissenters just picked that up and finished it. The salon.com article directly responds to the Crawford's article, with an update from "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process" stating that Roberts actually wrote both opinions. Given the plausibility of this view, it should be included in the Speculation section and perhaps be given as much length as Crawford's source. -- Abstractematics ( talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Added a blurb at the end about ongoing litigation related to NFIB v. Sebelius. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 03:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The audio from the three days of arguments and the opinions have recently been released by the National Archives and I have uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. There are 5 separate files, all available in commons:Category:US National Archives series: Audio Recordings of Oral Arguments, compiled 1955 - 2012. These, or clips, might be useful to this article, so I wanted to let the contributors here know. The files could also use categorizing on Commons, if anyone is interested. Dominic· t 19:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain who Kathleen Sebelius is, there should be some information/explanation.-- occono ( talk) 01:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On June 10 Mfuzia added the following paragraph under Academic Commentary:
Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind™ conducted research on the public's constitutional perspective by asking registered voters about key legal issues brought up by PPACA litigation through two surveys based upon a random sampling of the United States population. The authors, Bruce G. Peabody and Peter J. Woolley contend that, through public response on this case, that despite claims of an ignorant and uninformed public, the masses can be confident, properly conflicted, and principled when considering major controversies and dilemmas.[80] Rather than polling the public on raw personal opinion, the study conducted inquired into the random voters legal judgement on PPACA constitutionality. For example, 56% of Americans (as of February 2012) deemed that Congress does not have the legal right to require everyone to have health insurance, while 34% believed that such a mandate was legally permissable.
I removed it with the comment: "removed PublicMind research as not about the subject. It's about the public's perception of the constitution, or perhaps PPACA, but not about NFIB v. Sebelius".
Mfuzia restored it (re-reverted) without comment.
Mfuzia, most of this material isn't notable, and what might be notable belongs in the PPACA article. Please respond and please do your best to refrain from edit warring. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
NFIB v. Sebelius did not uphold "most provisions" of Obamacare as stated in the beginning of the article, merely the individual mandate. The court did not pass judgment on any of the other provisions, except the state medicare expansion (which it held unconstitutionally coercive). The rest of the law was not overturned, but no decision on its constitutionality was determined. Indeed, several cases are currently working their way through the courts on various other parts, like religious contraceptive mandates, etc. Jaykest1 ( talk) 13:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The actual text of the SCOTUS decision uses the word "unconstitutional" to describe the individual mandate and the Medicaid penalty. SCOTUS does not merely say, "improper" or "invalid". The majority opinion explicitly states an individual mandate penalty is unconstitutional (while an individual tax is not) and explicitly states "the Act’s 'Medicaid expansion' is unconstitutional in threatening states with loss of existing Medicaid funding". There's no reason for this article to obscure the ruling behind weaker language. I propose using the terminology which literally appears in the ruling by modifying following passage to read...
A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was an unconstitutional use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, though they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's spending power as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding. William Frantz ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)