WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld most of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying it was authorized by Congress’ power to levy taxes.
The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four more liberal members.
The decision was a victory for Obama and congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative pillar of Obama’s presidency. The ruling upheld the individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
The justices rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
The court did substantially limit a major piece of the law, one that expanded Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, frequently the swing vote, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent. He read from the bench that the minority viewed the law as “invalid in its entirety” and that the court’s interpretation “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”
Political reaction
Obama spoke from the White House shortly after the decision was handed down. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said.
Republicans, who have made repeal of the law a priority, once again bashed the measure.
“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” said Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.”
The decision seemed unlikely to alter the basic contours of a tight presidential election that will be a referendum on the condition of the U.S. economy and Obama’s handling of it.
Still, the justices did reset the debate on a major campaign issue — and there were signs that a more nuanced, and complicated, political dynamic might now be coming into play. Less clear, though, was whether the ruling would move many voters Obama’s way.
Roberts’ effect
For a second time in the court’s final week of its term, Roberts aligned himself with the liberal justices. In a decision Monday, he had voted to invalidate parts of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Roberts “saved the day — and perhaps the court,” in the health care ruling, said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar who once hired Obama as a research assistant and also had the chief justice as a student.
William Galston, a former Clinton administration official, wrote that Roberts might have “had one eye focused on jurisprudence and another on the standing of the institution he heads.”
Republican lawmakers largely focused on their dismay with the ruling, steering clear of its author, although Sen. David Vitter, R-La., accused Roberts of “amazingly rewriting the law in order to uphold it.”
That Roberts upheld the health-care law was a surprise from a judge whose rulings and background, including legal work in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, suggested a conventionally conservative worldview.
The chief justice considers himself the custodian of the Supreme Court’s prestige, authority and legitimacy, and he is often its voice in major cases. There was reason, then, to think he might have provided a sixth vote to uphold the law had Kennedy joined the court’s four-member liberal wing. That would have allowed Roberts, the thinking went, to write a narrow, grudging majority opinion. But almost no one thought that he would provide the fifth vote, joining only the liberals.
The legacy of the Roberts court came into focus Thursday, and it is one in which the chief justice serves as a sort of fulcrum and safety valve.
He can pull the court back from bold action, as he did in 2009 when he persuaded seven of his colleagues to follow him in a novel interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, rather than striking down its heart as a majority of the justices had seemed inclined to do at the argument.
Or he could join it in bold action, as he did seven months later when he provided the fifth vote in Citizens United, which reversed precedents, struck down part of a major law and amped up the role of money in politics.
“There is a difference,” Roberts wrote in Citizens United, “between judicial restraint and judicial abdication.”
The health-care decision tacked back in the other direction, toward restraint.
Role of the courts
That is not to say Roberts has ruled out aggressive action by the court, and he has said that he does not view striking down a federal law as of itself evidence of activism.
At Roberts’ confirmation hearings, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked him whether “overturning a statute that we pass here in the national legislature is almost presumptively an example of judicial activism,” particularly “when saying that Congress has overstepped its bounds with respect to regulating interstate commerce.”
The nominee, then a federal appeals court judge, said no.
“If the court strikes down an act of Congress and it’s wrong, the court shouldn’t have done that,” Roberts said. “That’s not an act of judicial activism, it’s just being wrong.”
That statement foreshadowed a recent shift in conservative legal thinking about the role of the courts. It was not long ago that deferring to the elected branches was generally thought to be a positive virtue, an appealing sort of judicial modesty and restraint.
Lately, though, columnist George Will has said the judicial branch “is dangerous to liberty when it is unreasonably restrained.” He criticized Romney for his commitment to judicial restraint.
“One hopes Romney recognizes,” Will said, “that judicial deference to elected representatives can be dereliction of judicial duty.”
The health care decision provides a new data point. It will disappoint advocates of conservative and libertarian “judicial engagement,” and it will confound commentators who say there is nothing left to judicial restraint.
As Roberts explained at his confirmation hearings seven years ago, his approach to testing the constitutionality of federal laws involved significant deference to the elected branches.
“All judges are acutely aware of the fact that millions and millions of people have voted for you and not one has voted for any of us,” he told Hatch. “That means that you have the responsibility of representing the policy preferences of the people.”
He made the point more sharply Thursday, in a part of his opinion in which he spoke only for himself.
“It is not our job,” he said, “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
The Associated Press and McClatchy Newspapers contributed to this report.
What the ruling said
Is the individual mandate constitutional?
Yes
The court upheld the most disputed part of the health-care law: the mandate that virtually all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine. The court said that the fine is essentially a tax, and that’s why the government has the power to impose it.
Is the law’s provision expanding Medicaid to cover a greater share of the poor constitutional?
Yes, but …
The justices found that the law’s expansion of Medicaid can more forward but not its provision that threatens states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if the states declined to comply with the expansion.
Excerpts from the ruling
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts
“The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting states all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view, it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.” Dissent, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy
Reaction to the ruling
“I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this — about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.” President Barack Obama
“Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who promised to repeal the law
“It’s a great moment to just think about what this will mean for the millions and millions of Americans who have already benefited from the Affordable Care Act and so many more who will continue to do so. There will be a lot of work to do to get it implemented and understand what the opinion says, but obviously, I was quite excited to hear the results.” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.” Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio
