This Monday, oral arguments began in the challenge brought by the attorney generals of 26 states to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court previously issued a writ of certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to consider appeals to its holding in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In the ruling, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s declaration that a portion of the Act was unconstitutional on the grounds that an individual mandate to purchase health insurance exceeded Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.
The central issue of Monday’s oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Act was whether the law’s penalty for not purchasing health insurance is essentially a tax, in part because the penalty is collected by the Internal Revenue Service. If the penalty is deemed a tax, it is possible that the Court cannot rule on the mandate’s constitutionality until the mandate becomes effective in 2014 and an individual sues for a refund of the penalty.
According to lawyers close to the Supreme Court justices, as well as key questions asked by the justices to the arguing attorneys, the justices may not consider the penalty a tax. Justice Ginsberg pointed out that the objective of the Act is not to raise money for the government, but rather to incentivize a person to purchase health insurance. Similarly, Justice Kagan noted that, because the Act was silent on the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act, the penalty may not be considered a tax.
You can read more insights into the Justices’ questions here.
Author(s): Brooke P. Dolara
