The NCSL Blog

27

By Lisa Soronen

Last December, a federal district court declared the Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual mandate unconstitutional.

  The Justice Department sent a letter in support of repealing the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. Here, a sign in support of the ACA in April 2017 in New York City. Kevin Hagen/Getty Images It also declared the remaining provisions of the act “inseverable,” meaning also invalid. The court didn’t issue a nationwide injunction, which would have had the effect of immediately ceasing all aspects of law.

In the district court litigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) didn’t defend the individual mandate. But it did argue that other provisions of the ACA, excluding the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, which were intended to provide affordable health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, were severable.

Now DOJ has informed the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it has changed course and agrees with the lower court that the entire ACA was properly invalidated.

Other elements of the ACA which would have been severable had the district court adopted DOJ’s previous position include eliminating coverage limits, allowing dependent children to remain on their parents insurance until age 26, health insurance exchanges, and the Medicaid expansion.

The ACA individual mandate required uninsured people who didn’t purchase health insurance to pay a so-called shared-responsibility payment. In 2012 the Supreme Court held the individual mandate is a constitutional “exercise of Congress’s Tax Power because it triggered a tax.” The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 reduced the tax to $0 as of Jan. 1.

Challengers argued the individual mandate is no longer a “constitutional exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers” when the shared-responsibility payment is zero. The district court agreed. According to the court the individual mandate and the shared-responsibility payment are distinct. The Supreme Court concluded the individual mandate was constitutional because it triggers a tax. But following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the mandate no longer triggers a tax.

If Congress had enacted the constitutional parts of a law without the unconstitutional parts, the unconstitutional parts are severable. The district court concluded the individual mandate is inseverable from the entire act because “Congress stated three separate times that the Individual Mandate is essential to the ACA.”

A number of states, led by California, have appealed and will defend the individual mandate before the 5th Circuit. Presumably these states will argue, as they did before the district court, that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional it is also severable.

While presumably no one will argue that the individual mandate plus the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements are severable now that DOJ has abandoned that position, the Fifth Circuit could adopt that position regardless. 

Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center and a frequent contributor on judicial issues to the NCSL Blog.

Posted in: Health
Actions: E-mail | Permalink |

Subscribe to the NCSL Blog

Click on the RSS feed at left to add the NCSL Blog to your favorite RSS reader. 

About the NCSL Blog

This blog offers updates on the National Conference of State Legislatures' research and training, the latest on federalism and the state legislative institution, and posts about state legislators and legislative staff. The blog is edited by NCSL staff and written primarily by NCSL's experts on public policy and the state legislative institution.