Politics & Policy

Obamacare Headed to the High Court Again?

The bill began in the Senate, but taxes must originate in the House — so says the Constitution.

Developments in the last ten days make it more likely that the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will agree to hear the leading challenge of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) to the Obamacare individual-mandate penalty — and whoever does not prevail at this level will have a compelling case to take to the Supreme Court. An order from the D.C. Circuit last week, instructing the Obama administration to respond to PLF’s petition for rehearing, and an impressive set of amicus briefs supporting PLF’s petition filed yesterday confirm that this is no ordinary litigation.

Readers will recall that Chief Justice John Roberts joined four justices in 2012 to hold that the individual mandate was not authorized by the Commerce Clause or other congressional power, but he sided with four other justices in holding that the penalty for not buying insurance could be read as a tax, pursuant to Congress’s taxing power. No judge below had accepted the tax theory, so the debate over the tax issue in the Supreme Court briefs was truly brief. The Court was careful to write that Congress still had to comply with all constitutional requirements for the exercise of its taxing power, so the initial Obamacare ruling did not purport to end litigation that raised that and other issues.

PLF subsequently amended its lawsuit on behalf of Matt Sissel to argue that if the individual-mandate penalty can be upheld only as a tax, it is still unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause. A district court and a panel of the D.C. Circuit rejected our argument, but the panel’s reasoning would effectively gut the Origination Clause. On October 6, PLF asked the entire D.C. Circuit to rehear the case and reverse the panel decision. Things have only gotten more interesting since.

As my PLF colleague Paul Beard originally noted, the D.C. Circuit took two days to order the government to respond to our petition for rehearing. Any order to respond to a motion for rehearing is unusual. Indeed, under the circuit court’s rules, no party is even allowed to respond to a petition for rehearing en banc without court approval. Professor Randy Barnett argued yesterday that our case is more deserving of en banc review than the statutory issue the entire court agreed to review in Halbig v. Sibelius. The court need not decide that either case is more worthy of review, but we noted in footnote 2 of our petition for rehearing why judicial economy suggests it should decide our constitutional challenge first.

Compelling amicus briefs filed yesterday in support of our petition for rehearing by congressional leaders and a number of states add to the persuasive amicus briefs already on file. Tim Sandefur does a great job of summarizing four of the newer amicus briefs here, including why the panel’s reading of the Origination Clause is inconsistent with its original public meaning and would render it a dead letter, which was the focus of the brief for Senators Cornyn and Cruz and another brief for House Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks and 42 other members of the House.

It’s also important to note that the states and other congressional officials have a compelling interest to be heard in the case, which any court should consider carefully. Texas and twelve other states argue that their taxing power is undermined if Congress does not comply with the constitutional requirements for its taxing authority. House Majority Leader McCarthy and House Majority Whip Scalise filed their own brief noting their responsibility to enforce constitutional rules for taxation and the House’s prerogatives relating thereto. In testimony I presented to Congress on the issue last spring, I also explained how the framers designed our government so that the voters could punish House members who neglected our individual rights by ignoring the requirements of the Origination Clause.

However the D.C. Circuit rules on our petition for rehearing, the matter is likely to be resolved by the High Court. Our litigation is like the first Obamacare challenge in another way. Big-government types and even most sympathetic legal scholars significantly discounted the chance that the Supreme Court would take the constitutional issues seriously. While the ultimate ruling was certainly disappointing, the Court did strike down an expansion of Medicaid on a Spending Clause ground it had never accepted before, and its ruling on the Commerce Clause was not what the 99 percent had predicted.

The Origination Clause simply can’t be dismissed as some nuisance that Congress can easily defeat by declaring multiple “purposes” for imposing a tax. That is why the Supreme Court should ultimately rule in our client’s favor, and however reluctantly, strike down Obamacare as unconstitutional.

Todd Gaziano is the executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s D.C. Center and its senior fellow in constitutional law. He can be reached on Twitter @ToddGaziano.

Most Popular

Why Trump’s Losing

President Trump pulled an inside straight to win in 2016, and now he needs another one. The good news for Trump is that his approval rating has stopped falling recently. The bad news is that it has stabilized in the low 40s. Election-watcher Harry Enten points out that no president since Harry Truman has won ... Read More

Why Trump’s Losing

President Trump pulled an inside straight to win in 2016, and now he needs another one. The good news for Trump is that his approval rating has stopped falling recently. The bad news is that it has stabilized in the low 40s. Election-watcher Harry Enten points out that no president since Harry Truman has won ... Read More
U.S.

A Stay-at-Home Mom on Her Reasons for Leaving Portland

While covering events (see here and here) in Portland, Ore., National Review writer Luther Abel sat down with Joanna -- a college-educated, stay-at-home mom and now Trump voter -- who feels it is no longer safe or healthy to live there. They discussed the change that has happened in the city politically, the ... Read More
U.S.

A Stay-at-Home Mom on Her Reasons for Leaving Portland

While covering events (see here and here) in Portland, Ore., National Review writer Luther Abel sat down with Joanna -- a college-educated, stay-at-home mom and now Trump voter -- who feels it is no longer safe or healthy to live there. They discussed the change that has happened in the city politically, the ... Read More
U.S.

Baby Please Come Back, Says Andrew Cuomo

Then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg famously described New York City in 2003 as a “luxury product,” and therefore priced accordingly. The price hasn’t changed, except to go up slightly — taxes, rents, everything. But few would argue that the product New York offers remains first-rate. The theaters are closed. The ... Read More
U.S.

Baby Please Come Back, Says Andrew Cuomo

Then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg famously described New York City in 2003 as a “luxury product,” and therefore priced accordingly. The price hasn’t changed, except to go up slightly — taxes, rents, everything. But few would argue that the product New York offers remains first-rate. The theaters are closed. The ... Read More
Law & the Courts

New York’s Lawless NRA Lawsuit

The latest bananas news from the banana republic that is the State of New York: The attorney general, a political enemy of the National Rifle Association, is seeking to have the advocacy organization legally dissolved. The pretext is financial corruption and self-dealing on the part of the NRA’s ... Read More
Law & the Courts

New York’s Lawless NRA Lawsuit

The latest bananas news from the banana republic that is the State of New York: The attorney general, a political enemy of the National Rifle Association, is seeking to have the advocacy organization legally dissolved. The pretext is financial corruption and self-dealing on the part of the NRA’s ... Read More
Elections

Joe Biden’s Authoritarian VP Finalist

Last year, Senator Kamala Harris may have become the first presidential candidate in history to laugh derisively at the idea that the Constitution limits what a president can do. When former Vice President Joe Biden said that her plan for gun control by executive fiat didn’t pass constitutional muster, she ... Read More
Elections

Joe Biden’s Authoritarian VP Finalist

Last year, Senator Kamala Harris may have become the first presidential candidate in history to laugh derisively at the idea that the Constitution limits what a president can do. When former Vice President Joe Biden said that her plan for gun control by executive fiat didn’t pass constitutional muster, she ... Read More