Health insurance requirement
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
In brief
The Supreme Court partly left the lower court’s ruling in place and partly overturned it.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 28, 2012 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- Businesses and states challenged the Affordable Care Act’s insurance requirement and Medicaid expansion.
- Who it affects
- The parties received a mixed result: some parts of the lower court’s ruling remained in place, while others were overturned.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court upheld the insurance requirement under Congress’s power to tax and ruled Congress could not threaten states with loss of existing Medicaid funds for refusing the expansion; it agreed with the lower court on some issues and overturned its ruling on others.
The case brought together challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s health-insurance requirement and its Medicaid expansion.
Question presented
1. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)? 2. Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance? 3. Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA? 4. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?
What the Court decided
Holding
Adjudged to be affirmed IN PART, reversed IN PART. Roberts, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-C., in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III-A, III-B, and III-D. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which Sotomayor, J., joined, and in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J, filed a dissenting opinion.
The vote
What's next
The Supreme Court has issued its judgment. The docket disposition does not specify a further step for lower courts, agencies or affected parties.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Sebelius
Opinion added: NFIB
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.