NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

摘要

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),1 as amended, Congress enacted the individual mandate, which requires certain individuals to have a minimum level of health insurance. Individuals who fail to do so may be subject to a monetary penalty, administered through the tax code.2 Prior to ACA, Congress had never required individuals to buy health insurance, and there had been significant debate over whether the individual mandate was within the scope of Congresss legislative powers. Shortly after ACA was enacted, several lawsuits were filed that challenged the individual mandate on constitutional grounds. While some of these cases were dismissed for procedural reasons, others moved forward. These challenges culminated in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB),3 one of the most controversial and highly publicized cases in recent years. This case received a great deal of attention, not just because of its potential implications for federal regulation of the health care system, but also for the scope of legislative power and the relationship between the federal government, states, and individuals.