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
SCOTUS Rules That States May Limit Women’s and Girls’ Sports to Biological Females – Another Chapter in the Delicate Legislative Balance Between Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause
Key Takeaways I. Background and Procedural History The Supreme Court consolidated two cases challenging state laws that restrict participation in …
Is Florida the New Hot Jurisdiction for Defamation Cases?
Florida is emerging as a favorable venue for defamation lawsuits because its long-arm statute makes it easier to bring out-of-state publishers into court—but plaintiffs still must clear the same substantive legal hurdles once the case gets there.
Forced Labor Tariffs – Public Comments Due Next Week for USTR Section 301 Investigation
US importers have the opportunity to submit public comment on proposed tariffs that will utilize Section 301 as a means of addressing forced labor in global supply chains. Comments are due to the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) by July 6, 2026.
Influencer Marketing Under Fire: Gymshark Sued in New Class Action as Plaintiffs Target Undisclosed Paid Endorsements
Key Takeaways Overview Brands that leverage social-media influencers to promote products face a rapidly growing litigation threat. Over the past …