Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts There is no "mandate." And oh, by the way, Judge O'Connor didn't enjoin enforcement of any provision of the ACA, let alone "strike down" Obamacare in its entirety.
|
Saturday, December 15, 2018
There is no "mandate." And oh, by the way, Judge O'Connor didn't enjoin enforcement of any provision of the ACA, let alone "strike down" Obamacare in its entirety.
Marty Lederman All the many critics are absolutely correct that Judge O’Connor’s severability analysis in his Affordable Care Act opinion yesterday is indefensible. By focusing so intently on the severability argument, however, many of those critics concede (or assume) far too much at the front end, which is, if anything, even less defensible.
The
linchpin of O’Connor’s judgment—the part that triggers his severability
analysis in the first place—is his conclusion that once the Affordable Care Act’s
“shared responsibility payment” is reduced to zero on January 1 (the result of
an amendment Congress enacted in December 2017), what will remain of 26 U.S.C. §
5000A is a “mandate” for individuals to “maintain minimum essential [health
insurance] coverage.” Because Congress
lacks any power to mandate, or require, individuals to purchase or maintain insurance,
reasons Judge O’Connor, the “mandate” will become unconstitutional in a couple
of weeks. And having decided that, O’Connor then further "reasons" that the “mandate” isn’t severable from any of the
other myriad of provisions of the ACA, and thus that the entire kit and kaboodle will be inoperative
on January 1.
The word
“mandate” or the phrase “individual mandate” appears no fewer than 245 times in
Judge O’Connor’s decision. On top of
that, he uses “requirement” and “obligation” as synonyms for “mandate” another 45
or so times. That’s close to 300
references in a single 55-page opinion.
But
the ACA doesn’t contain any mandate, or legal requirement, for anyone to maintain health
insurance. What § 5000A contains,
instead, is a choice. As originally enacted—that is to say, under the ACA in effect today
(i.e., before January 2019)—that choice for most individuals is either to maintain health insurance
(subsection 5000A(a)) or to make the
prescribed “shared responsibility payment,” which has been the greater of 2.5%
of household income or $695 (subsection 5000A(b)). As Chief Justice Roberts put the point in NFIB v. Sebelius, "[t]hose subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."
As of January 1, the second of those two lawful choices will become even less onerous—paying "zero" will be an option that satisfies the law, just as paying the greater of 2.5% of household income or $695 to the IRS did until now.
Judge
O’Connor repeatedly insists that the directives in subsections 5000A(a) and (b)
are “distinct”—that “Congress never intended the two things to be one,” and “could
not possibly have intended the mandate and penalty to be treated as one when it
treated them as two.” He’s right about
that—but what he appears not to realize is that it undermines, rather than
supports, his argument that § 5000A imposes a “mandate” to maintain health
insurance. They are distinct provisions—and Congress plainly meant to give
individuals the choice between complying with one or the other, either of which is a lawful option. (At one point O’Connor writes that “because
Congress had the power to enact the shared-responsibility exaction, § 5000A(b),
under the Tax Power, it was fairly possible to read the Individual Mandate, §
5000A(a), as a functional part of that
tax also enacted under Congress’s Tax Power.” This is simply nonsense. Obviously, § 5000A(a) isn’t a “part of a tax”—it’s
an option that individuals may choose to comply with in lieu
of paying the tax in subsection 5000A(b).)
What
about the word “shall”? See § 5000A(a) ( “An applicable
individual shall . . . ensure that
the individual . . . is covered under minimum essential coverage.”) Doesn’t that create a mandate—a legal
obligation—to maintain health insurance?
No, it doesn’t. Read in conjunction
with subsection (b), and in light of the government’s unequivocal (and correct)
representations in NFIB v. Sebelius,
upon which Chief Justice Roberts relied, that “if someone chooses to pay rather
than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law,” it’s evident
that Congress’s use of the word “shall” in § 5000A(a) merely describes one of
two available choices—it doesn’t create a “mandate,” or legal obligation, to “ensure
that the individual . . . is covered under minimum essential coverage.” This follows directly from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at
169-170, in which the Court, using a virtually identical analysis, explained
that a provision of federal law reading that “[e]ach State shall be responsible for providing ... for the disposal of ...
low-level radioactive waste” did not impose a legal requirement the states (which would have been
unconstitutional) when read in conjunction with other provisions of the same act
providing that the failure to provide for such disposal subjected a state to losing
the right to federal dollars and to lose access to disposal sites in other
States.
In
sum, because Congress has the power to impose one of the two “lesser included” options
described in § 5000A, standing alone, it therefore has the authority to offer
individuals the choice between complying with that option and another, even if
it couldn’t impose the latter as a stand-alone requirement.
The
intervenor defendant States in the new case go to great lengths in their briefs to insist
that the amended version of § 5000A(b)—setting the payment option at “zero” as
of January—continues to be an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Contra Judge
O’Connor, they’re probably right about that—but it doesn’t matter whether or
not they are. Congress doesn’t need to
point to any particular fount of Article I, section 8 authority in order to afford
individuals the option of doing nothing—which is what the recent amendment
does. And if that’s a lawful option
behind Door No. 2, there’s simply no “mandate” to maintain insurance (Door No.
1), no matter how many times Judge O’Connor says otherwise. [UPDATE: As Neil Siegel puts the point in a follow-up post: "To put it bluntly, Congress does not require an enumerated power to declare that Americans must either do X or else not do X and suffer no consequences. After the 2017 statutory amendment to the ACA, that is what the individual mandate and shared responsibility payment provisions provide."]
This
understanding is the only way to make practical sense of § 5000A, in at least
two important respects.
First, Judge O’Connor’s reading blinks reality in terms of what everyone knows Congress’s “plan” was when it amended the ACA in 2017 (see Burwell v. King). As I wrote earlier, the 2017 Republican Congress obviously didn’t intend to diminish individuals’ choices and to require them to maintain health insurance beginning in 2019 whereas they previously didn’t have to do so. Indeed, I think it’s a safe bet that no members of Congress who voted for the bill would favor such a result—and that they’d all laugh at the idea that that’s what they accomplished in 2017. Instead, the new Congress’s design was manifestly to lessen the burden on individuals by giving them an option they previously didn’t have—namely, to decline to either maintain insurance or pay a tax: Come January, payment of “zero” while not maintaining health insurance will be a lawful option. Because that's precisely what the Congress intended. [Later in his opinion, in the severability analysis, Judge O'Connor actually has the audacity to write that the 2017 Congress “intended to preserve the Individual Mandate because the 2017 Congress, like the 2010 Congress, knew that provision is essential to the ACA.” As Nick Bagley writes today regarding that statement: "Your jaw should be on the floor. On no account did Congress in 2017 'intend to preserve' the individual mandate. It meant to get rid of the loathed mandate — and it did, by eliminating the penalty that gave it force and effect."]
Second, take a look at the key tell, very early in Judge O’Connor’s
opinion: the run-over sentence on pages 3-4 and
the accompanying footnote 2. When it
enacted the ACA in 2010, Judge O’Connor (correctly) explains, “Congress exempted five
categories of individuals from the shared-responsibility payment but not the Individual
Mandate” (citing § 5000A(e)). What were
those exempted categories of individuals? (i) Those who can’t afford coverage; (ii) taxpayers below the poverty line; (iii) members of Indian tribes; (iv) individuals experiencing “short coverage gaps” in
health insurance; and (v) persons who’ve received a “hardship” exemption from the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
From
2014 (when § 5000A went into effect) to this day, individuals in each of those categories have, in effect, been
subject to a “responsibility payment” of zero, just as everyone else will be
come January. According
to Judge O’Connor, all of those persons have, since 2014, been subject to a
legal “obligat[ion] to obtain minimum-essential coverage.” Yet presumably many hundreds of thousands or millions of such persons
have not maintained health insurance for all or most of that time. Thus they have, in O’Connor’s view, been
lawbreakers each and every day of the past eight-plus years.
Allow me to repeat that, because it so vividly illustrates what's wrong with Judge O'Connor's--and the Trump DOJ's--theory of the case: According to O'Connor and DOJ, someone who has been making monthly payments to the IRS for the past eight years has been in compliance with the law, but many indigent persons and tribal members have been recklessly and audaciously violating federal law every month for years on end by neither making such a payment nor maintaining health insurance. [UPDATE: I tweaked this to make it less categorical in light of the fact that many such persons of course satisfy § 5000A(a) by receiving, e.g, Medicaid or employer-provided care.]
This
is, of course, absurd. Congress
originally exempted those persons from the payment obligation precisely because
they could not afford to purchase health
insurance (or some other equitable reason, such as the inefficiency/inconvenience
of purchasing insurance during “short coverage gaps,” or the fact that tribes
provide health care to their members).
Congress didn’t intend to obligate them to purchase and maintain health
insurance—to give them even fewer lawful choices
than everyone else has had. Precisely
the contrary: Congress exempted them from
a statutory burden everyone else has had because it’d be unfair or impossible
for them to fulfill it.
Come
January 1, we’ll all be similarly situated to those five categories, e.g., to those who can’t afford coverage,
including the very poorest among us, when it comes to § 5000A: Like them, we’ll have a lawful option of
doing nothing—paying “zero.” Section 5000A will not require (just as it has not previously required) anyone
to maintain health insurance.[1] (Accord, Jonathan
Adler: “[T]here is nothing left in
the ACA that mandates that people obtain health insurance.”)
Therefore § 5000 won’t be unconstitutional in January—instead it’ll
merely be toothless. And if § 5000 isn’t unconstitutional, that’s the end
of Texas’s case.
There’s no need even to proceed to severability analysis.
* * * *
And now, a word on the nature and scope of the judgment: Having written one of the more aggressive and implausible opinions in many a year, Judge O'Connor blinks at the end. He only grants the plaintiffs "partial summary judgment," ostensibly on Count One of their Amended Complaint: For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment and declares the Individual Mandate, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA, Pub. L. 111-148, are INSEVERABLE and therefore INVALID. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in Count I of the Amended Complaint.There are at least two problems with Judge O'Connor's judgment on Count One of the Amended Complaint, which reads as follows: Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the individual mandate of the ACA exceeds Congress’s Article I constitutionally enumerated powers. Plaintiffs also are entitled to a permanent injunction against Defendants from implementing, regulating, or otherwise enforcing any part of the ACA because its requirements are unlawful and not severable from the unconstitutional individual mandate.As you can see, the "declaratory" relief the plaintiffs seek in Count One extends only to the "individual mandate of the ACA"--they do not seek a declaration that the rest of the ACA is "invalid." Therefore Judge O'Connor extended his declaratory relief beyond what the plaintiffs asked for (which isn't beyond his authority, but should come with some explanation, especially where, as here, that declaration is toothless). On the other hand, what that paragraph of Count One of the Complaint does seek with respect to the remainder of the ACA is "a permanent injunction against Defendants from implementing, regulating, or otherwise enforcing any part of the ACA because its requirements are unlawful and not severable from the unconstitutional individual mandate." (They ask for similar injunctive relief in Count Five, too.) Strangely enough, however, Judge O'Connor did not grant that requested injunctive relief, and failed to offer any explanation for why he didn't do so in his adjudication of the motion for summary judgment on Count One of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, contrary to almost every media account you've read in the past few hours (come on, New York Times!) Judge O'Connor did not "strike down" the "entire Affordable Care Act" (something he lacks the power to do, in any event), nor did he even issue any injunction prohibiting federal officials from implementing any part of it, let alone all of its provisions. Indeed, his judgment doesn't require the parties to change their conduct at all. “[A] declaratory judgment...is a much milder form of relief than an injunction. Though it may be persuasive, it is not ultimately coercive; noncompliance with it may be inappropriate, but is not contempt.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 471 (1974). There is, therefore, at least a theoretical possibility that the federal defendants might simply disregard Judge O'Connor's indefensible declaratory judgment, particularly in light of the fact that appears to be reluctant to back it up with the force of an injunction.
[1] For
another illustration of why that’ll be so, imagine that an individual who’s been making the responsibility payment
rather than maintaining insurance for the past few years voluntarily chooses to
continue paying the IRS $695 a year, even after January 1, 2019, when the tax
requirement will be reduced to zero. That person, in other words,
does not change her behavior in the slightest. Will she then be
violating the law because of the 2017 amendment? Of course
not. But according to Judge O’Connor, she will be.
Posted 1:04 PM by Marty Lederman [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |