Yesterday, I wrote: "Commerce doesn't exist to be regulated until people engage in commerce. The ACA forces people to engage in commerce, then regulates them."
Today at the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy asked the Solicitor General: "Can you create commerce order to regulate it?"
Now, I'm not saying that Justice Kennedy checks out the Wizard of Laws before important arguments, but is it more than a coincidence that his first question to the Solicitor General echoed the Wiz? Just sayin'.
Now, to business.
Not a good day for the Obama administration or its Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli. He was questioned relentlessly by the Justices -- especially Kennedy, Alito, and Scalia -- on the implications of the administration position that the individual mandate was founded on the Commerce Clause.
Here are three beautiful statements by Justice Scalia:
The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what -- what else can it not do?and
An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government.and
I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people. And the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.Verrilli had a difficult time, but as flustered as he got, Paul Clement, arguing for the 26 states challenging Obamacare, was that composed and cool under fire. Here's an example from an exchange between Clement and Justice Breyer, who, as part of a question that ran two pages in the transcript, inquired whether Congress had the power to create commerce, based on the fact that Congress created a national bank, which was approved by the Supreme Court in the 1819 McCulloch v Maryland decision. Clement replied coolly:
MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Breyer, let me start at the beginning of your question with McCulloch. McCulloch was not a commerce power case.
JUSTICE BREYER: It was both?
MR. CLEMENT: No, the bank was not justified and the corporation was not justified as an exercise of commerce power. So that is not a case that says that it's okay to conjure up the bank as an exercise of the commerce power.
That's pretty much the way the day went -- Verrilli struggling and Clement in command. As most appellate lawyers will tell you, it's risky to predict outcomes based on questions during oral argument, but it's difficult to see this as anything other than a good day for Obamacare opponents.
Wednesday's Arguments on Severability and Medicaid
Read about severability here. If the lower court decisions on severability were laid end to end, they would point in all directions. Still, it's hard to imagine that this bill would have passed without the individual mandate, so if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, there is no logical reason the rest of the bill should survive.
The other issue is Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. As described by the 26 states challenging the law:
Title II of the ACA expands the Medicaid program in multiple respects and transforms it from a cooperative program addressed to specific categories of the most needy into a mandatory program designed to fulfill the individual mandate for the entire non-elderly population with income below 138% of the federal poverty line. Whereas States traditionally were required to offer Medicaid only to those low-income individuals who fell within certain “categorically needy” groups (families with dependent children, elderly, blind, disabled, children, and pregnant women), and retained significant flexibility to determine whether and to what extent to cover other low-income individuals, the Act requires States to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level, with a 5% “income disregard” provision that effectively raises that threshold to 138%.
Congress could not require the states to implement and expand these programs through direct legislation, however, so it is attempting to accomplish it through the "spending power." Congress has conditioned the receipt of all federal monies on state compliance with the new Medicaid provisions, thus effectively coercing state compliance by a kind of blackmail. As the 26 states put it:
The ACA threatens States with the loss of every penny of federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program in existence—literally billions of dollars each year—if they do not capitulate to Congress’ steep new demands. There is no plausible argument that a State could afford to turn down such a massive federal inducement, particularly when doing so would mean assuming the full burden of covering its neediest residents’ medical costs, even as billions of federal tax dollars extracted from the State’s residents would continue to fill federal coffers to fund Medicaid in the other 49 States.Ultimately, I think the Court may end up not deciding the Medicaid question at all. If the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional and determines that it is not severable, the entire act, including the Medicaid provisions, crumbles. At that point, the Medicaid issue is moot and can be reserved for another day.
Another fascinatiing day coming up on Wednesday, with severability being the big issue of the day.