SCOTUS Starts Hearings on Obamacare. Here’s What You Need To Know. | Beaufort County Now | On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the case California v. Texas. | daily wire, SCOTUS, supreme court, obamacare, oral arguments, individual mandate, november 10, 2020

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

SCOTUS Starts Hearings on Obamacare. Here’s What You Need To Know.

Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Hank Berrien.

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in the case California v. Texas. The case revolves around whether the plaintiffs have established standing to challenge the minimum-coverage provision in the act as well as whether the minimum-coverage provision can be "severed" from the rest of the ACA.

    Some Republican-governed states have attacked the law's individual insurance mandate as unconstitutional, and thus they want the Supreme Court to repeal the entire law. As reported in July, "The Trump administration's U.S. Justice Department argues in the health care case California v. Texas that the entire health care insurance law should fall after Congress in 2017 eliminated the tax penalty for failure to purchase health insurance. The penalty provision could not be severed from the rest of the act because of its interrelationship to other critical features of the law, then-U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in a recent brief."

    Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, perceived as conservatives on the Supreme Court, have previously argued for the doctrine of severability, which would allow Obamacare to survive even if the insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

    Kavanaugh joined the 7-2 majority in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, ruling that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act could be protected despite the exception for collection of government debts to the federal ban on cellphone robocalls, which could be severed from the act. Roberts wrote in Seila Law v. CFPB that the "for cause" removal protection for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could be separated from the Dodd-Frank act that had created the bureau. He stated, "We think it clear that Congress would prefer that we use a scalpel rather than a bull- dozer in curing the constitutional defect we identify today."

    In Seila, Justice Clarence Thomas countered the Court's doctrine of severability, writing, "Because the power of judicial review does not allow courts to revise statutes, Mitchell, supra, at 983, the Court's severability doctrine must be rooted in statutory interpretation. But, even viewing severability as an interpretive question, I remain skeptical of our doctrine. As I have previously explained, 'the severability doctrine often requires courts to weigh in on statutory provisions that no party has standing to challenge, bringing courts dangerously close to issuing advisory opinions.'"

    Thomas continued:

  • In short, when multiple provisions of law combine to cause a constitutional injury, the Court's current approach allows the Court to decide which provision to sever. The text of a severability clause does not guide that choice. ... The Court is thus left to choose based on nothing more than speculation as to what the Legislature would have preferred. And the result of its choice can have a dramatic effect on the governing statutory scheme.
  • It is incumbent on us to take a close look at our precedents to make sure that we are not exceeding the scope of the judicial power. Given my concerns about our modern severability doctrine and the fact that severability makes no difference to the dispute before us, I would resolve this case by simply denying the CFPB's petition to enforce the civil investigative demand.


Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Colleges have been trying to stop COVID-19 from spreading on campus, and after a year of experimentation, failure, and success, officials may have found their way.
The State Board of Elections on Thursday received a 2020 Clearinghouse Award for Best Practices in Recruiting, Retaining and Training Poll Workers.
The N.C. State Board of Education passed a resolution Thursday, March 4, calling on all public school districts to give parents the option of in-person learning by the end of March.
When it comes to an inherent right, nothing is regulated quite like the Second Amendment.
As the N.C. State Board of Education votes Thursday, March 4, to reopen schools, a far-left teachers’ union is trying to deny that children are suffering from learning loss.
Top aides of Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly pressured state health department officials to alter a report to remove the total number of nursing home residents who died from the coronavirus.


Group 4 vaccinations to begin March 24 for people who have a medical condition that puts them at higher risk or who live in certain congregate settings
Jim Geraghty of National Review Online notes a disturbing tendency among some political observers.
This article is dedicated to our great Founding Fathers - men who had the courage, the foresight, and the wisdom to secure the freedom that I exercise and enjoy every single day. - Diane Rufino
Exec. Order No. 200 Establishes Flexible Work Search Requirements to Help Bridge Employment Gap
This nearly one-third reduction of state debt frees up the General Funds budget for other priorities, as annual debt service payments become less burdensome.
Goldman Sachs announced on Thursday that it is setting a new goal to reach a carbon-emission level of net-zero by the year 2030.
A majority of North Carolina public school students failed to pass end-of-course tests in fall 2020, according to new data from the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.


Back to Top