NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v.

SEBELIUS
Introduction
Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010: the individual mandate which re!uires individuals to purchase a health insurance
policy providing a minimum level of coverage" and the #edicaid e$pansion which gives funds to the
%tates on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citi&ens whose income falls below a
certain threshold' (e do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies' That )udgment is
entrusted to the *ation+s elected leaders' (e as, only whether Congress has the power under the
Constitution to enact the challenged provisions'
In our federal system the *ational -overnment possesses only limited powers" the %tates and the people
retain the remainder' *early two centuries ago Chief .ustice #arshall observed that /the !uestion
respecting the e$tent of the powers actually granted0 to the 1ederal -overnment /is perpetually arising
and will probably continue to arise as long as our system shall e$ist'0 #cCulloch v' #aryland 2 (heat'
314 205 617189' In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers
it now asserts but which many %tates and individuals believe it does not possess' :esolving this
controversy re!uires us to e$amine both the limits of the -overnment+s power and our own limited role
in policing those boundaries'
The 1ederal -overnment /is ac,nowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers'0 Ibid' That is rather
than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government the Constitution
lists or enumerates the 1ederal -overnment+s powers' Congress may for e$ample /coin #oney0
/establish Post ;ffices0 and /raise and support Armies'0 Art' I <7 cls' 5 = 12' The enumeration of
powers is also a limitation of powers because />t?he enumeration presupposes something not
enumerated'0 -ibbons v' ;gden 8 (heat' 1 185 617229' The Constitution+s e$press conferral of some
powers ma,es clear that it does not grant others' And the 1ederal -overnment /can e$ercise only the
powers granted to it'0 #cCulloch supra at 205'
Today the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans+ minds are li,ely to be
affirmative prohibitions such as contained in the @ill of :ights' These affirmative prohibitions come
into play however only where the -overnment possesses authority to act in the first place' If no
enumerated power authori&es Congress to pass a certain law that law may not be enacted even if it
would not violate any of the e$press prohibitions in the @ill of :ights or elsewhere in the Constitution'
Indeed the Constitution did not initially include a @ill of :ights at least partly because the 1ramers felt
the enumeration of powers sufficed to restrain the -overnment' As Ale$ander Aamilton put it /the
Constitution is itself in every rational sense and to every useful purpose a bill of rights'0 The 1ederalist
*o' 72 p' 515 6C' :ossiter ed' 18419' And when the @ill of :ights was ratified it made e$press what the
enumeration of powers necessarily implied: /The powers not delegated to the Bnited %tates by the
Constitution ' ' ' are reserved to the %tates respectively or to the people'0 B' %' Const' Amdt' 10' The
1ederal -overnment has e$panded dramatically over the past two centuries but it still must show that a
constitutional grant of power authori&es each of its actions' %ee e'g' Bnited %tates v' Comstoc, 540
B' %' CCC 620109'
The same does not apply to the %tates because the Constitution is not the source of their power' The
Constitution may restrict state governmentsDas it does for e$ample by forbidding them to deny any
person the e!ual protection of the laws' @ut where such prohibitions do not apply state governments do
1
not need constitutional authori&ation to act' The %tates thus can and do perform many of the vital
functions of modern governmentDpunishing street crime running public schools and &oning property
for development to name but a fewDeven though the Constitution+s te$t does not authori&e any
government to do so' ;ur cases refer to this general power of governing possessed by the %tates but not
by the 1ederal -overnment as the /police power'0 %ee e'g' Bnited %tates v' #orrison 528 B' %' 587 E
418 620009'
/%tate sovereignty is not )ust an end in itself: :ather federalism secures to citi&ens the liberties that
derive from the diffusion of sovereign power'0 *ew For, v' Bnited %tates 505 B' %' 122 171 618829
6internal !uotation mar,s omitted9' @ecause the police power is controlled by 50 different %tates instead
of one national sovereign the facets of governing that touch on citi&ens+ daily lives are normally
administered by smaller governments closer to the governed' The 1ramers thus ensured that powers
which /in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives liberties and properties of the people0 were
held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy' The 1ederalist
*o' 25 at 283 6.' #adison9' The independent power of the %tates also serves as a chec, on the power of
the 1ederal -overnment: /@y denying any one government complete )urisdiction over all the concerns
of public life federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power'0 @ond v' Bnited
%tates 542 B' %' CCC CCC 620119 6slip op' at 8E109'
This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the 1ederal -overnment but which must
be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority a,in to the police power' The Constitution
authori&es Congress to /regulate Commerce with foreign *ations and among the several %tates and
with the Indian Tribes'0 Art' I <7 cl' 3' ;ur precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate
/the channels of interstate commerce0 /persons or things in interstate commerce0 and /those activities
that substantially affect interstate commerce'0 #orrison supra at 408 6internal !uotation mar,s
omitted9' The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be e$pansive' That
power has been held to authori&e federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer+s
decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestoc, and a loan shar,+s e$tortionate collections from a
neighborhood butcher shop' %ee (ic,ard v' 1ilburn 31= B' %' 111 618229 " Pere& v' Bnited %tates 202
B' %' 124 618=19 '
Congress may also /lay and collect Ta$es Guties Imposts and H$cises to pay the Gebts and provide for
the common Gefence and general (elfare of the Bnited %tates'0 B' %' Const' Art' I <7 cl' 1' Put
simply Congress may ta$ and spend' This grant gives the 1ederal -overnment considerable influence
even in areas where it cannot directly regulate' The 1ederal -overnment may enact a ta$ on an activity
that it cannot authori&e forbid or otherwise control' %ee e'g' Iicense Ta$ Cases 5 (all' 242 2=1
6174=9' And in e$ercising its spending power Congress may offer funds to the %tates and may
condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions' %ee e'g' College %avings @an, v'
1lorida Prepaid Postsecondary Hd' H$pense @d' 52= B' %' 444 474 618889 ' These offers may well
induce the %tates to adopt policies that the 1ederal -overnment itself could not impose' %ee e'g' %outh
Ga,ota v' Gole 273 B' %' 203 E204 6187=9 6conditioning federal highway funds on %tates raising their
drin,ing age to 219'
The reach of the 1ederal -overnment+s enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution
authori&es Congress to /ma,e all Iaws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into H$ecution
the foregoing Powers'0 Art' I <7 cl' 17' (e have long read this provision to give Congress great
latitude in e$ercising its powers: /Iet the end be legitimate let it be within the scope of the constitution
and all means which are appropriate which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited but
consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution are constitutional'0 #cCulloch 2 (heat' at 221'
2
;ur permissive reading of these powers is e$plained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts
of the *ation+s elected leaders' /Proper respect for a coJordinate branch of the government0 re!uires that
we stri,e down an Act of Congress only if /the lac, of constitutional authority to pass >the? act in
!uestion is clearly demonstrated'0 Bnited %tates v' Aarris 104 B' %' 428 435 617739 ' #embers of this
Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law" we possess neither the e$pertise nor the
prerogative to ma,e policy )udgments' Those decisions are entrusted to our *ation+s elected leaders
who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them' It is not our )ob to protect the people
from the conse!uences of their political choices'
;ur deference in matters of policy cannot however become abdication in matters of law' /The powers
of the legislature are defined and limited" and that those limits may not be mista,en or forgotten the
constitution is written'0 #arbury v' #adison 1 Cranch 13= 1=4 617039' ;ur respect for Congress+s
policy )udgments thus can never e$tend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the
Constitution carefully constructed' /The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure
more or less wise but cannot render it more or less constitutional'0 Chief .ustice .ohn #arshall A
1riend of the Constitution *o' K Ale$andria -a&ette .uly 5 1718 in .ohn #arshall+s Gefense of
#cCulloch v' #aryland 180E181 6-' -unther ed' 18489' And there can be no !uestion that it is the
responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by stri,ing down acts of Congress that
transgress those limits' #arbury v' #adison supra at 1=5E1=4'
The !uestions before us must be considered against the bac,ground of these basic principles'
Part I
In 2010 Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 122%tat' 118' The Act aims
to increase the number of Americans covered by health inJsurance and decrease the cost of health care'
The Act+s 10 titles stretch over 800 pages and contain hundreds of provisions' This case concerns
constitutional challenges to two ,ey provisions commonly referred to as the individual mandate and the
#edicaid e$pansion'
The individual mandate re!uires most Americans to maintain /minimum essential0 health insurance
coverage' 24 B' %' C' <5000A ' The mandate does not apply to some individuals such as prisoners and
undocumented aliens' ' '
The second provision of the Affordable Care Act directly challenged here is the #edicaid e$pansion'
Hnacted in 1845 #edicaid offers federal funding to %tates to assist pregnant women children needy
families the blind the elderly and the disabled in obtaining medical care' %ee 22 B' %' C' <1384a6a9
6109' In order to receive that funding %tates must comply with federal criteria governing matters such as
who receives care and what services are provided at what cost' @y 1872 every %tate had chosen to
participate in #edicaid' 1ederal funds received through the #edicaid program have become a
substantial part of state budgets now constituting over 10 percent of most %tates+ total revenue'
The Affordable Care Act e$pands the scope of the #edicaid program and increases the number of
individuals the %tates must cover' 1or e$ample the Act re!uires state programs to provide #edicaid
coverage to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level whereas many %tates
now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower and do not cover childless
adults at all' %ee <1384a6a961096A96i96KIII9' The Act increases federal funding to cover the %tates+ costs
in e$panding #edicaid coverage although %tates will bear a portion of the costs on their own'
3
<1384d6y9619' If a %tate does not comply with the Act+s new coverage re!uirements it may lose not only
the federal funding for those re!uirements but all of its federal #edicaid funds' %ee <1384c' ' '
Part III
The -overnment advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to
enact the individual mandate' 1irst the -overnment argues that Congress had the power to enact the
mandate under the Commerce Clause' Bnder that theory Congress may order individuals to buy health
insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce and could unJdercut the Affordable
Care Act+s other reforms' %econd the -overnment argues that if the commerce power does not support
the mandate we should nonetheless uphold it as an e$ercise of Congress+s power to ta$' According to
the -overnment even if Congress lac,s the power to direct individuals to buy insurance the only effect
of the individual mandate is to raise ta$es on those who do not do so and thus the law may be upheld as
a ta$'
Part IIIJA
The -overnment+s first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid e$ercise of Congress+s power
under the Commerce Clause and the *ecessary and Proper Clause' According to the -overnment the
health care mar,et is characteri&ed by a significant costJshifting problem' Hveryone will eventually need
health care at a time and to an e$tent they cannot predict but if they do not have insurance they often
will not be able to pay for it' @ecause state and federal laws nonetheless re!uire hospitals to provide a
certain degree of care to individuals without regard to their ability to pay see e'g' 22 B' %' C' <1385dd "
1la' %tat' Ann' <385'1021 hospitals end up receiving compensation for only a portion of the services
they provide' To recoup the losses hospitals pass on the cost to insurers through higher rates and
insurers in turn pass on the cost to policy holders in the form of higher premiums' Congress estimated
that the cost of uncompensated care raises family health insurance premiums on average by over
L1000 per year' 22 B' %' C' <17081629619 '
The individual mandate was Congress+s solution to these problems' @y re!uiring that individuals
purchase health insurance the mandate prevents costJshifting by those who would otherwise go without
it' In addition the mandate forces into the insurance ris, pool more healthy individuals whose
premiums on average will be higher than their health care e$penses' This allows insurers to subsidi&e the
costs of covering the unhealthy individuals the reforms re!uire them to accept' The -overnment claims
that Congress has power under the Commerce and *ecessary and Proper Clauses to enact this solution'
Part IIIJAJ1
The -overnment contends that the individual mandate is within Congress+s power because the failure to
purchase insurance /has a substantial and deleterious effect on interstate commerce0 by creating the
costJshifting problem' ' '
-iven its e$pansive scope it is no surprise that Congress has employed the commerce power in a wide
variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time' @ut Congress has never attempted to rely on
that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product'
3
Iegislative novelty is not necessarily fatal" there is a first time for everything' @ut sometimes /the most
telling indication of >a? severe constitutional problem ' ' ' is the lac, of historical precedent0 for
Congress+s action' 1ree Hnterprise 1und v' Public Company Accounting ;versight @d' 541 B' %' CCC
CCC 620109 6slip op' at 259 6internal !uotation mar,s omitted9' At the very least we should /pause to
2
consider the implications of the -overnment+s arguments0 when confronted with such new conceptions
of federal power' Iope& supra at 542'
The Constitution grants Congress the power to /regulate Commerce'0 Art' I <7 cl' 3 6emphasis added9'
The power to regulate commerce presupposes the e$istence of commercial activity to be regulated' If the
power to /regulate0 something included the power to create it many of the provisions in the
Constitution would be superfluous' 1or e$ample the Constitution gives Congress the power to /coin
#oney0 in addition to the power to /regulate the Kalue thereof'0 Id' cl' 5' And it gives Congress the
power to /raise and support Armies0 and to /provide and maintain a *avy0 in addition to the power to
/ma,e :ules for the -overnment and :egulation of the land and naval 1orces'0 Id' cls' 12E12' If the
power to regulate the armed forces or the value of money included the power to bring the sub)ect of the
regulation into e$istence the specific grant of such powers would have been unnecessary' The language
of the Constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already
something to be regulated' %ee -ibbons 8 (heat' at 177 6/>T?he enlightened patriots who framed our
constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed words in their natural
sense and to have intended what they have said09'
4
;ur precedent also reflects this understanding' As e$pansive as our cases construing the scope of the
commerce power have been they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as
reaching /activity'0 It is nearly impossible to avoid the word when !uoting them' ' '
The individual mandate however does not regulate e$isting commercial activity' It instead compels
individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product on the ground that their failure to do
so affects interstate commerce' Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate
individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to
congressional authority' Hvery day individuals do not do an infinite number of things' In some cases
they decide not to do something" in others they simply fail to do it' Allowing Congress to )ustify federal
regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an
individual could potentially ma,e within the scope of federal regulation andDunder the -overnment+s
theoryDempower Congress to ma,e those decisions for him'
Indeed the -overnment+s logic would )ustify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem' ' 'To
consider a different e$ample in the health care mar,et many Americans do not eat a balanced diet' That
group ma,es up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance' %ee e'g'
Gept' of Agriculture and Gept' of Aealth and Auman %ervices Gietary -uidelines for Americans 1
620109' The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs to a greater e$tent
than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance' ' 'Those increased costs are borne in part by
other Americans who must pay more )ust as the uninsured shift costs to the insured' ' ' Congress
addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance' Bnder the -overnment+s
theory Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables' ' '
People for reasons of their own often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society'
Those failuresD)oined with the similar failures of othersDcan readily have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce' Bnder the -overnment+s logic that authori&es Congress to use its commerce
power to compel citi&ens to act as the -overnment would have them act'
Part IKJA
5
The %tates also contend that the #edicaid e$pansion e$ceeds Congress+s authority under the %pending
Clause' They claim that Congress is coercing the %tates to adopt the changes it wants by threatening to
withhold all of a %tate+s #edicaid grants unless the %tate accepts the new e$panded funding and
complies with the conditions that come with it' This they argue violates the basic principle that the
/1ederal -overnment may not compel the %tates to enact or administer a federal regulatory program'0
*ew For, 505 B' %' at 177'
There is no doubt that the Act dramatically increases state obligations under #edicaid' The current
#edicaid program re!uires %tates to cover only certain discrete categories of needy individualsD
pregnant women children needy families the blind the elderly and the disabled' 22 B' %' C' <1384a6a9
6109' There is no mandatory coverage for most childless adults and the %tates typically do not offer any
such coverage' The %tates also en)oy considerable fle$ibility with respect to the coverage levels for
parents of needy families' <1384a6a961096A96ii9' ;n average %tates cover only those unemployed parents
who ma,e less than 3= percent of the federal poverty level and only those employed parents who ma,e
less than 43 percent of the poverty line' Maiser Comm+n on #edicaid and the Bninsured Performing
Bnder Pressure 11 and fig' 11 620129'
The #edicaid provisions of the Affordable Care Act in contrast re!uire %tates to e$pand their #edicaid
programs by 2012 to cover all individuals under the age of 45 with incomes below 133 percent of the
federal poverty line' <1384a6a961096A96i96KIII9' ' '
The %pending Clause grants Congress the power /to pay the Gebts and provide for the ' ' ' general
(elfare of the Bnited %tates'0 B' %' Const' Art' I <7 cl' 1' (e have long recogni&ed that Congress may
use this power to grant federal funds to the %tates and may condition such a grant upon the %tates+
/ta,ing certain actions that Congress could not re!uire them to ta,e'0 College %avings @an, 52= B' %'
at 474' %uch measures /encourage a %tate to regulate in a particular way >and? influenc>e? a %tate+s
policy choices'0 *ew For, supra at 144' The conditions imposed by Congress ensure that the funds are
used by the %tates to /provide for the ' ' ' general (elfare0 in the manner Congress intended'
At the same time our cases have recogni&ed limits on Congress+s power under the %pending Clause to
secure state compliance with federal ob)ectives' /(e have repeatedly characteri&ed ' ' ' %pending Clause
legislation as Nmuch in the nature of a contract'+ 0 @arnes v' -orman 534 B' %' 171 174 620029 6!uoting
Pennhurst %tate %chool and Aospital v' Aalderman 251 B' %' 1 1= 618719 9' The legitimacy of
Congress+s e$ercise of the spending power /thus rests on whether the %tate voluntarily and ,nowingly
accepts the terms of the Ncontract'+ 0 Pennhurst supra at 1=' :especting this limitation is critical to
ensuring that %pending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the %tates as independent
sovereigns in our federal system' That system /rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive
insight that Nfreedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments not one'+ 0 @ond 542 B' %' at
CCC 6slip op' at 79 6!uoting Alden v' #aine 52= B' %' =04 =57 618889 9' 1or this reason /the
Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to re!uire the %tates to
govern according to Congress+ instructions'0 *ew For, supra at 142' ;therwise the twoJgovernment
system established by the 1ramers would give way to a system that vests power in one central
government and individual liberty would suffer'
That insight has led this Court to stri,e down federal legislation that commandeers a %tate+s legislative
or administrative apparatus for federal purposes' ' ' Congress may use its spending power to create
incentives for %tates to act in accordance with federal policies' @ut when /pressure turns into
compulsion0 the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism' />T?he Constitution simply does
not give Congress the authority to re!uire the %tates to regulate'0 *ew For, 505 B' %' at 1=7' That is
4
true whether Congress directly commands a %tate to regulate or indirectly coerces a %tate to adopt a
federal regulatory system as its own'
Permitting the 1ederal -overnment to force the %tates to implement a federal program would threaten
the political accountability ,ey to our federal system' />(?here the 1ederal -overnment directs the
%tates to regulate it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval while the
federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral
ramifications of their decision'0 Id' at 148' %pending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a
%tate has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in e$change for federal funds' In
such a situation state officials can fairly be held politically accountable for choosing to accept or refuse
the federal offer' @ut when the %tate has no choice the 1ederal -overnment can achieve its ob)ectives
without accountability )ust as in *ew For, and Print&' Indeed this danger is heightened when Congress
acts under the %pending Clause because Congress can use that power to implement federal policy it
could not impose directly under its enumerated powers' ' '
The %tates however argue that the #edicaid e$pansion is far from the typical case' They ob)ect that
Congress has /crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion0 *ew For, supra at 1=5
in the way it has structured the funding: Instead of simply refusing to grant the new funds to %tates that
will not accept the new conditions Congress has also threatened to withhold those %tates+ e$isting
#edicaid funds' The %tates claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling %tates
to sign up for the dramatic e$pansion in health care coverage affected by the Act'
-iven the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here we must agree' (e have upheld
Congress+s authority to condition the receipt of funds on the %tates+ complying with restrictions on the
use of those funds because that is the means by which Congress ensures that the funds are spent
according to its view of the /general (elfare'0 Conditions that do not here govern the use of the funds
however cannot be )ustified on that basis' (hen for e$ample such conditions ta,e the form of threats
to terminate other significant independent grants the conditions are properly viewed as a means of
pressuring the %tates to accept policy changes' ' '
Aere the -overnment claims that the #edicaid e$pansion is properly viewed merely as a modification
of the e$isting program because the %tates agreed that Congress could change the terms of #edicaid
when they signed on in the first place' The -overnment observes that the %ocial %ecurity Act which
includes the original #edicaid provisions contains a clause e$pressly reserving />t?he right to alter
amend or repeal any provision0 of that statute' 22 B' %' C' <1302 ' %o it does' @ut /if Congress intends
to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys it must do so unambiguously'0 Pennhurst 251
B' %' at 1=' A %tate confronted with statutory language reserving the right to /alter0 or /amend0 the
pertinent provisions of the %ocial %ecurity Act might reasonably assume that Congress was entitled to
ma,e ad)ustments to the #edicaid program as it developed' Congress has in fact done so sometimes
conditioning only the new funding other times both old and new' %ee e'g' %ocial %ecurity
Amendments of 18=2 74%tat' 1371E1372 1245 6e$tending #edJicaid eligibility but partly conditioning
only the new funding9" ;mnibus @udget :econciliation Act of 1880 <2401 102%tat' 1377E144
6e$tending eligibility and conditioning old and new funds9'
The #edicaid e$pansion however accomplishes a shift in ,ind not merely degree' The original
program was designed to cover medical services for four particular categories of the needy: the disabled
the blind the elderly and needy families with dependent children' %ee 22 B' %' C' <1384a6a96109 '
Previous amendments to #edicaid eligibility merely altered and e$panded the boundaries of these
categories' Bnder the Affordable Care Act #edicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health
=
care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level' It is
no longer a program to care for the neediest among us but rather an element of a comprehensive
national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage'
14
Indeed the manner in which the e$pansion is structured indicates that while Congress may have styled
the e$pansion a mere alteration of e$isting #edicaid it recogni&ed it was enlisting the %tates in a new
health care program' Congress created a separate funding provision to cover the costs of providing
services to any person made newly eligible by the e$pansion' (hile Congress pays 50 to 73 percent of
the costs of covering individuals currently enrolled in #edicaid <1384d6b9 once the e$pansion is fully
implemented Congress will pay 80 percent of the costs for newly eligible persons <1384d6y9619' The
conditions on use of the different funds are also distinct' Congress mandated that newly eligible persons
receive a level of coverage that is less comprehensive than the traditional #edicaid benefit pac,age'
<1384a6,9619" see @rief for Bnited %tates 8'
As we have e$plained />t?hough Congress+ power to legislate under the spending power is broad it
does not include surprising participating %tates with postacceptance or Nretroactive+ conditions'0
Pennhurst supra at 25' A %tate could hardly anticipate that Congress+s reservation of the right to /alter0
or /amend0 the #edicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically' ' '
O O O
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part' The individual mandate
cannot be upheld as an e$ercise of Congress+s power under the Commerce Clause' That Clause
authori&es Congress to regulate interstate commerce not to order individuals to engage in it' In this case
however it is reasonable to conJstrue what Congress has done as increasing ta$es on those who have a
certain amount of income but choose to go without health insurance' %uch legislation is within ConJ
gress+s power to ta$'
As for the #edicaid e$pansion that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by
threatening e$isting #edicaid funding' Congress has no authority to order the %tates to regulate
according to its instructions' Congress may offer the %tates grants and re!uire the %tates to comply with
accompanying conditions but the %tates must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer' The
%tates are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of
#edicaid or ris, losing all #edicaid funding' The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude
the 1ederal -overnment from imposing such a sanction' That remedy does not re!uire stri,ing down
other portions of the Affordable Care Act'
The 1ramers created a 1ederal -overnment of limited powers and assigned to this Court the duty of
enforcing those limits' The Court does so today' @ut the Court does not e$press any opinion on the
wisdom of the Affordable Care Act' Bnder the Constitution that )udgment is reserved to the people'
The )udgment of the Court of Appeals for the Hleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part'
It is so ordered'
7