News Release: Faculty Experts
Dec. 14, 2010
Health Care Law Ruling Not the Last Word, Says Schapiro
Federal Judge Henry Hudson’s opinion this week holding unconstitutional the individual mandate in the recent federal health care reform legislation will not be the last word on the issue, especially because the legal analysis is not well-grounded in existing law, says Constitutional law expert Robert Schapiro of the School of Law.
With regard to Congress’s power to enact the mandate under its Commerce Clause authority, Judge Hudson’s opinion “lays great emphasis on the distinction between activity and inactivity,” says Schapiro. “That simply is not a distinction that finds support in Commerce Clause precedent.”
Instead, says Schapiro, “the issue is whether the overall scheme is necessary to the regulation of commerce.”
For example, he says, the federal Child Support Recovery Act makes it a crime willfully to fail to pay child support. The law clearly regulates and criminalizes inaction, but it has been consistently upheld under the Commerce Clause.
“The opinion is similarly unprecedented in rejecting the theory that the mandate comes within Congress’s taxing power,” says Schapiro. “The health care bill does not actually require anyone to purchase health insurance. The bill imposes a tax on people who fail to purchase health insurance, unless they fall within certain exceptions.
“Judge Hudson’s opinion mainly points out that the statute uses the word ‘penalty,’ rather than ‘tax,’” Schapiro says. “Apparently, he believes it is unfair for Congress and the administration to avoid the political costs attendant to imposing taxes, while still employing Congress’s taxing authority. That may (or may not) be a laudable principle of governmental transparency, but it is not a principle of constitutional law.
“The provision functions like a tax, is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and will indeed raise revenue,” Schapiro points out. “Judge Hudson insists that the provision is not a ‘bona fide revenue raising measure.’ That is not a test of Congress’s taxing power that has been employed in at least 70 years.”
If the opinion is taken at its word, says Schaprio, “it seems that any constitutional flaw could be cured by amending the statute to substitute the word ‘tax’ for ‘penalty,’
The Constitution does not impose such formalistic requirements on Congress. With regard to the powers of Congress, courts must look at what a statute does, not scold Congress for its choice of language.”