Client Alerts & Insights
The U.S. Supreme Court Rules on the ACA – The Individual Mandate is Constitutional
By: Daniel J. O'Brien
June 28, 2012
Authored By:
This morning, June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court released their decision upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate – the centerpiece of President Obama’s health care law.
The individual mandate requires that all Americans maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage. Beginning in 2014, individuals that do not comply with the mandate must make a “shared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. The amount of the payment varies with household income, subject to a floor and a ceiling based on the average annual premium that the individual would have to pay for private health insurance.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the individual mandate was permissible under the Commerce Clause, instead concluding that the individual mandate was permissible under Congress’ taxing authority.
Another key provision of the Affordable Care Act is the expansion of the Medicaid program. The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals that states must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage to adults that earn up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Many states only provide Medicaid to individuals whose incomes are significantly lower.
While the Act increases federal funding to cover the states’ costs in expanding coverage, it also threatened to withdraw all federal Medicaid funds for failure to comply. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that while it was permissible to expand the Medicaid program, the Act could not withdraw existing Medicaid funds for states that opt out of the expansion.
Additional Information
For more information on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, please feel free to contact any member of our health care practice group for a further discussion.
Benesch’s Health Care Practice Group
Cleveland
W. Cliff Mull at 216.363.4198 or cmull@beneschlaw.com
Daniel J. O’Brien at 216.363.4691 or dobrien@beneschlaw.com
Alan Schabes at 216.363.4589 or aschabes@beneschlaw.com
Columbus
Frank Carsonie at 614.223.9361 or fcarsonie@beneschlaw.com
Martha Sweterlitsch at 614.223.9367 or msweterlitsch@beneschlaw.com
Latest News
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.