2 ore 5 min
California v. Texas - Affordable Care Act case Supreme Court Oral Argument Legalese - Law Radio Podcast
-
- Economia
Facts of the case
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against a constitutional challenge by characterizing the penalty for not buying health insurance as a tax, which Congress has the power to impose. In 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance to zero, but it left the rest of the ACA in place. Texas and several other states and individuals filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the individual mandate again, arguing that because the penalty was zero, it can no longer be characterized as a tax and is therefore unconstitutional. California and several other states joined the lawsuit to defend the individual mandate.
The federal district court held that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional and that as a result, the entire ACA is invalidated because the individual mandate cannot be “severed” from the rest of the Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion but remanded the case for reconsideration of whether any part of the ACA survives in the absence of the individual mandate. The Supreme Court granted California’s petition for review, as well as Texas’s cross-petition for review.
Question
Is the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which now has a penalty of zero for not buying health insurance, now unconstitutional?
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, is it severable from the remainder of the ACA?
----------------------
From the top DIY legal company - visit our partner here!
---
Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legalese/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legalese/support
Facts of the case
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against a constitutional challenge by characterizing the penalty for not buying health insurance as a tax, which Congress has the power to impose. In 2017, the Republican-controlled Congress enacted an amendment to the ACA that set the penalty for not buying health insurance to zero, but it left the rest of the ACA in place. Texas and several other states and individuals filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the individual mandate again, arguing that because the penalty was zero, it can no longer be characterized as a tax and is therefore unconstitutional. California and several other states joined the lawsuit to defend the individual mandate.
The federal district court held that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional and that as a result, the entire ACA is invalidated because the individual mandate cannot be “severed” from the rest of the Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion but remanded the case for reconsideration of whether any part of the ACA survives in the absence of the individual mandate. The Supreme Court granted California’s petition for review, as well as Texas’s cross-petition for review.
Question
Is the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which now has a penalty of zero for not buying health insurance, now unconstitutional?
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, is it severable from the remainder of the ACA?
----------------------
From the top DIY legal company - visit our partner here!
---
Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legalese/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legalese/support
2 ore 5 min