When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments over the next three days in cases challenging President Obama’s national health care law, justices will wrestle with a number of complex constitutional questions. But the outcome of the case, and fate of the president’s most significant legislative achievement, will likely hinge on how the court views the Commerce Clause.
One of the most widely debated parts of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.” And as the size and scope of the federal government has grown throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has grappled with how broadly or narrowly to interpret the phrase.
Starting Monday, the court will begin hearing arguments on whether the health care law’s mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is a valid exercise of this power.
The Obama administration will argue that the government has a role in regulating the national health care market and that a person’s decision not to purchase insurance has wide economic effects. Therefore, the administration’s lawyers will insist, the mandate is an essential part of a broader regulatory scheme.
Yet, opponents of the law — the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states led by Florida — will contend that the health care mandate is without precedent.
All Commerce Clause cases heard by the Supreme Court before this one, opponents will argue, involved the government regulating individuals or businesses already engaged in some sort of activity. In this case, by contrast, people who are not purchasing insurance are not actually engaging in an activity. The law itself forces them to enter the stream of commerce.
The administration counters this argument by contending that the health care market is “unique” in that virtually everybody will eventually end up consuming some sort of health care.
If the court allows the mandate to stand, opponents claim, it would effectively give the federal government unlimited power to regulate individual behavior.
The court’s decision will have an immediate effect on this year’s presidential race and national health care policy, but legal experts have said the justices’ interpretation of the Commerce Clause will have an even longer-lasting impact on the scope of federal power.
