The Volokh Conspiracy

I recently published an analysis of the individual mandate oral argument for the University of Pennsylvania Regblog site. It goes through all nine justices and assesses their probable views on the mandate based on both their oral argument performance and their previous records on federalism issues:

This week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court shed some new light on how the justices are likely to vote on the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Overall, the arguments went well for the anti-mandate plaintiffs. But the ultimate result is still difficult to predict. Four justices seem likely to vote to strike down the mandate, while four others are likely to vote to uphold it. As the Court’s key swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy could potentially go either way.

The conservative justices zeroed in on the biggest hole in the pro-mandate argument: the likelihood that the federal government’s various rationales for the health insurance mandate would also authorize virtually any other mandate. This extension of congressional authority would undermine the basic constitutional principle that federal power is limited. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it, the key question is this: “What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?”

Readers might also be interested in this podcast co-blogger Orin Kerr and I did for the Federalist Society. As the podcast shows, Orin and I continue to disagree about the merits of the case, but there does seem to be a lot of common ground between us on the implications of the oral argument.

With the Supreme Court probably voting on the constitutionality of Obamacare (a term the President proudly embraces) on Friday, the health control law’s academic friends are diligently attempting to do what the entire United States Department of Justice could not do after two years of litigation: articulate plausible limiting principles for the individual mandate. Over at Balkinization, Neil Siegel offers Five Limiting Principles. They are:

1. The Necessary and Proper Clause. “Unlike other purchase mandates, including every hypothetical at oral argument on Tuesday, the minimum coverage provision prevents the unraveling of a market that Congress has clear authority to regulate.” This is no limitation at all. Under modern doctrine, Congress has the authority to regulate almost every market. If Congress enacts regulations that are extremely harmful to that market, such as imposing price controls (a/k/a “community rating”) or requiring sellers to sell products at far below cost to some customers (e.g., “guaranteed issue”) then the market will probably “unravel” (that is, the companies will lose so much money that they go out of business). So to prevent the companies from being destroyed, Congress forces other consumers to buy products from those companies at vastly excessive prices (e.g., $5,000 for an individual policy for a health 35-year-old whose actuarial expenditures for health care of all sorts during a year is $845).

So Siegel’s argument is really an anti-limiting principle: if Congress imposes ruinous price controls on  a market, to help favored consumers, then Congress can try to save the market’s producers by mandating that disfavored consumers buy overpriced products from those producers.

2. The Commerce Clause. “The minimum coverage provision addresses economic problems, not merely social problems that do not involve markets.” This is true, and is, as Siegel points out, a distinction from Lopez (carrying guns) and Morrison (gender-related violence). However, it’s pretty clear under long-established doctrine that the Commerce power can be used to address “social problems that do not involve markets.” E.g., Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) (Congress can use the interstate commerce power to criminalize interstate travel by people intending to engage in non-commercial extra-marital sex); Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) (“What clause can be cited which, in any degree, countenances the suggestion that one may, of right, carry or cause to be carried from one state to another that which will harm the public morals?”). Personally, I thought that Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent in Champion had the better argument, but Champion and its progeny are well-established precedents, so proposed limiting principle number two does not work, unless we overrule a century of precedent.

Besides that, #2 does not work for the same reason that #1 does not work. If Congress forced food producers to sell products to some consumers at far below cost, then Congress could (for economic, not social/moral motives) force other consumers to buy overpriced food, so that the producers do not go bankrupt. Imagine that instead of the Food Stamp program (general tax revenue given to 1/6 of the U.S. population to help them buy food), Congress forced grocery stores to sell food to poor people at far below cost. And instead of raising taxes in order to give money to the grocery stores to make up for their losses on the coerced sales, Congress instead forced other consumers to spend thousands of dollars on food from those same stores, which would be sold to those consumers at far above its free market price.

If there’s a limiting principle, the only one seems to be that in order to mandate the purchase of a product, Congress must also inflict some other harm on the producers of the product, which the coerced purchases will ameliorate.

3. “Collective action failures and interstate externalities impede the ability of the states to guarantee access to health insurance, prevent adverse selection, and prevent cost shifting by acting on their own. Insurers operate in multiple states and have fled from states that guarantee access to states that do not.” This is really a policy argument for Obamacare. Hypothesizing that it’s a good policy argument, it’s not a limiting principle. That the advocates of Obamacare think that the policy arguments for their mandate is better than the policy arguments for other mandates does not provide courts with a limiting principle of law.

Moreover, the policy argument is wrong. It’s true that some insurance companies stop operating in states where the law forces them to sell insurance to legislatively-favored purchasers at far below the actuarial cost of the insurance, with the  legislature failing to compensate the companies for the enormous resulting losses. If you make it difficult for companies to operate profitably in your state, then they will eventually stop operating in your state. It’s not a collective action problem; it’s just a problem of several states enacting laws that prevent companies from covering their costs. Any state with guaranteed issue and other price controls can solve the problem immediately by simply using tax revenues pay compensation for the subsidy which the state law forces the insurance companies to provide to certain consumers.

Obamacare is a particularly weak case in which to argue that the federal government is riding the rescue of the states to solve a collective action problem. For the first time in American history, a majority of the States are suing to ask that a federal law be declared unconstitutional. These states are taking collective action to stop the federal government from imposing a problem on them.

4. The Tax Power. “[T]he minimum coverage provision respects the limits on the tax power. The difference between a tax and a penalty is the difference between the minimum coverage provision and a required payment of say, $10,000 that has a scienter requirement and increases with each month that an individual remains uninsured. Unlike the minimum coverage provision, such an exaction would be so coercive that it would raise little or no revenue. It would thus be beyond the scope of the tax power.”

Let’s put aside the fact that, however ingenious the progressive professoriate’s  tax arguments have been, the chances that the individual mandate is going to be upheld under the tax power appear to be at most 1% greater than the chance the Buddy Roemer will be the next President of the United States.

Presuming that Siegel’s tax justification for the individual mandate is valid, it is an anti-limiting principle. Congress can indeed mandate eating hamburgers, smoking, not smoking, not eating hamburgers, or anything else Congress wants to mandate, as long as Congress sets the “tax” at level that will raise a moderate amount of revenue, does not include a scienter requirement, and does not make the “tax” increase each month that the individual refuses to do what Congress mandates.

5. Liberty. “The minimum coverage provision does not violate any individual rights, including bodily integrity and substantive due process more generally. These rights would be violated by a mandate to eat broccoli or exercise a certain amount.” Pointing to the existence of the Bill of Rights is not an example of a limiting principle for an enumerated federal power. The Constitution does not say that Congress may do whatever it wishes as long as the Bill of Rights protections of Liberty are not violated. Ordering New York State to take title to low-level radioactive waste generated within the state (New York v. United States) did not violate any person’s substantive due process rights, but the order was nonetheless unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s powers. The federal Gun-Free School Zones Act did not, as applied, violate the Second Amendment rights of Alfonso Lopez, who was carrying the gun to deliver it to a criminal gang. Yet the Act still exceeded Congress’s commerce power. A limiting principle must limit the exercise of the power itself, not merely point out that the Bill of Rights protects some islands of Liberty which the infinitely vast sea of federal power might not cover.

Finally, I certainly agree with Professor Siegel that the Fifth Amendment’s liberty guarantee (and its 14th Amendment analogue for the states) should be interpreted to say that no American government can order people to consume a certain amount of healthy food, or to exercise. But there is no major case that is on point for this. The argument for a new unenumerated right “not to eat the minimum quantity of nutritious food which government scientists have  determined is essential for good health” is something that would have to be built almost entirely by extrapolation from cases that have nothing to do with food. I hope that courts would accept the argument; but if the political culture ever moved far enough so that a nutrition mandate could pass a legislature, I’m not as certain as Prof. Siegel that courts would overturn the mandate. The odds of winning a case against a nutrition mandate will be better if the judges who decide that case have not grown up in a nation where a federal health control mandate is the law of the land.

Today’s oral argument was a good day for the anti-mandate plaintiffs and a troubling one for the law’s defenders. I have long argued that the weakest point in the federal government’s case is the failure to provide a coherent explanation of why the rationale for the health insurance mandate doesn’t also justify virtually any other mandate Congress might impose (e.g. here and here). All of the conservative justices raised this exact issue during the course of today’s oral argument, with the exception of the usually silent Clarence Thomas, whom few doubt will vote to strike down. And none of them seemed satisfied with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s answers. This does not bode well for the mandate.

I was also very happy to see this exchange between Verrilli and Justice Scalia regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That’s — it’s both “Necessary and Proper.” What you just said addresses what’s necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we’ve held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper, because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

The argument here is that this also is — may be necessary, but it’s not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all
this questioning has been about. What — what is left? If the government can do this, what — what else can it
not do?

GENERAL VERRILLI: This does not violate the norm of proper as this Court articulated it in Printz or in New York because it does not interfere with the States as sovereigns. This is a regulation that — this is a regulation -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, that wasn’t my point. That is not the only constitutional principle that exists.

GENERAL VERRILLI: But it -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government.

Scalia makes the key points that 1) a federal law must be both “necessary” and “proper” to be authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) a statute cannot be proper if the legal rationale for it would justify nearly unlimited federal power. These are exactly the arguments that we advanced in the amicus brief on this very issue that I wrote on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of constitutional law scholars.

I’m not saying that Scalia necessarily got the argument from us, or even that he read the brief. But whatever led him to take up this point, I’m very happy that he raised it. It is the key weakness in the federal government’s Necessary and Proper Clause argument, which is otherwise fairly strong – a weakness that the federal government almost completely ignored in their Petitioner’s brief for the Supreme Court. The federal government has tried to turn the Necessary and Proper Clause into a mere “necessary clause.” But, if Scalia’s views are any indication, the Supreme Court majority doesn’t seem to be buying.

As I explain in the amicus brief (pp. 28-29), this point also enables Scalia to distinguish his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, which many defenders of the mandate have been relying on. Raich did not address the issue of propriety. And in his concurring opinion in that case, Scalia emphasized (as he had in previous opinions) that “proper” is an independent limit on congressional power under the Clause, separate from necessity.

Before the oral argument, I thought that the plaintiffs had about a 30-40% chance of winning. I believed it was likely that the federal government would manage to persuade at least one conservative justice to buy one of their many “health care is special” rationales for the mandate. Now, I think the chances of the mandate being invalidated is at least 50%. The conservative justices just don’t seem to be biting on the “health care is special” hook.

On the other hand, it is still too early for mandate opponents to celebrate. The federal government has a whole raft of different “health care is special” arguments (I go through them and their weaknesses in Part I of this article). If the feds can persuade just one of the conservative justices to accept just one of these theories, they can still win. We certainly cannot rule out such a scenario. It could still easily happen. But unlike in high school debate, quantity of arguments in a major Supreme Court case is rarely a good substitute for quality. And the quality of the government’s “health care is special arguments” is at the very least highly suspect.

UPDATE: I have changed the original reference to “all five of the conservative justices” to exclude Clarence Thomas, who – as usual – did not ask any questions.

The CNN website has just posted a column I wrote on the individual mandate case. Here’s an excerpt:

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case challenging the Obama administration health care plan’s requirement that most Americans purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014. The court should rule that this individual mandate is unconstitutional. To do otherwise would give Congress almost unlimited power....

If Congress could use [the commerce] clause to regulate mere failure to buy a product on the grounds that such inaction has an economic effect, there would be no structural limits to its power. Any decision to do anything is necessarily a decision not to do something else that might have an economic effect. If I spend an hour sleeping, I thereby choose not to spend it working or shopping. As the lower court decision in this case explained, the government’s position “amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.”

The Hill has a story claiming that the federal government has changed its defense of the individual mandate to emphasize the Necessary and Proper Clause more:

The Obama administration has shifted its legal arguments as it prepares to defend the president’s healthcare law before the Supreme Court.

Written briefs in the landmark case increasingly have focused on a part of the Constitution that didn’t get much attention in lower courts....

The shift moves the focus of Justice’s argument from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says Congress can make laws that are necessary for carrying out its other powers.

The federal government has in fact relied on the Necessary and Proper Clause throughout the litigation in the lower courts. So at most this is a shift of emphasis rather than substance. The actual logic of the argument is essentially the same as in the lower courts. And every lower court decision striking down the mandate has in fact considered and rejected the government’s Necessary and Proper Clause reasoning; the lower court decisions upholding the mandate largely ignored the issue because they concluded that the mandate could be justified under the Commerce Clause alone.

If the Obama Administration has decided to emphasize the Necessary and Proper Clause argument more, it is remarkable that their brief for the Supreme Court case almost completely ignores the biggest weakness in that argument: the possibility that the mandate is not “proper” even if it is “necessary.” Both Supreme Court precedent and the text and original meaning of the Constitution make clear that these are two separate requirements, both of which must be met. Yet the government’s approach to the case essentially transforms the Necessary and Proper Clause into the “Necessary Clause.” The amicus brief I wrote on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of constitutional law scholars focuses on this very issue. It explains in detail why the mandate is not “proper” and therefore cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause even if it is “necessary.”

UPDATE: The Hill article speculates that the government’s emphasis on the Necessary and Proper Clause may be an effort to attract Justice Scalia’s vote. If so, it is worth noting that Scalia has repeatedly emphasized in previous opinions that propriety is a requirement distinct from necessity which imposes constraints on congressional power even in cases where the challenged federal law may be “necessary.” I discuss Scalia’s opinions in this field in the Washington Legal Foundation brief (pp. 13-14).

Regular VC readers might be interested in knowing just how many briefs in the individual mandate case have been authored by your humble Conspirators. In this post, I try to summarize all of them. Not surprisingly, they all urge the Court to strike down the mandate.

Pride of place goes to Randy Barnett’s coauthorship of the merits brief for the National Federation of Independent Business and other private plaintiffs in the case. Randy is in many ways the architect of the legal strategy against the mandate.

My own amicus brief on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of constitutional law scholars, argues that the mandate is not a “proper” exercise of Congress’ power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. I blogged about it in more detail here. Among our legal scholar amici are VC co-bloggers Jonathan Adler and Todd Zywicki.

David Kopel is the author of an excellent brief on behalf of the Independence Institute, Gary Lawson, Robert Natelson, and Guy Seidman, which focuses on a different aspect of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Lawson, Natelson, and Seidman are among the leading academic experts on the Clause.

John Elwood is the counsel of record on this amicus brief on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of some 2000 conservative and pro-free market state legislators. John’s brief focuses on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and especially on the ways in which the mandate is inimical to the interests of the states.

Former VC-er Erik Jaffe is the counsel of record on this amicus brief for Docs4Patient Care, the Benjamin Rush Society, the Pacific Research Institute, the Galen Institute, and Angel Raich (of Gonzales v. Raich fame).

It’s possible that I have inadvertently missed some other VC-authored brief. If so, I’m sure my co-bloggers will set me straight.

We have just filed an amicus brief in the individual mandate case that I wrote on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and a group of prominent constitutional law scholars. The brief is available here. The legal scholar amici include Steve Calabresi, James Ely, Steve Presser, and Volokh Conspiracy bloggers Jonathan Adler and Todd Zywicki, among others. Several other prominent legal scholars were unable to join us because they are involved with other amicus briefs in the case.

Rather than considering the full range of constitutional issues in the case, we decided to focus on why the mandate falls outside the scope of Congress’ powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause because it is not “proper.” We thought that an in-depth analysis of this crucial, underemphasized issue would be more useful than a brief that covered multiple issues in a more superficial way and that would overlap far more with other briefs filed in the case. As far as I know, this is the only amicus brief that focuses solely on the issue of propriety.

The problem of propriety is the main flaw in the federal government’s claim that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes the mandate – which is otherwise the strongest constitutional argument in favor of the mandate. It is striking that the Justice Department largely ignores the issue of propriety in their brief for the Petitioners. As explained more fully in our brief, the federal government’s position essentially transforms the Necessary and Proper Clause into just a “Necessary Clause.” This goes against logic, the text of the Constitution, the original meaning, and Supreme Court precedent. We hope to focus more attention on this weakness in the federal government’s case.

That’s the title of a new article by Gary Lawson and me, forthcoming in a symposium issue of Boston University’s American Journal of Law & Medicine. The Journal has a large readership among medical professionals who are interested in legal issues relating to medicine. Accordingly, if you have been following the VC’s debate on the ACA over the past couple years, most of what is in the article will already be familiar to you. Here is the abstract:

The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some portions of the statute are challenged. We then, using “unconstitutional” to mean” inconsistent with an original social understanding of the Constitution’s text (with a bit of a nod to judicial precedents),” show that the individual mandate in the PPACA is not authorized by the federal taxing power, the federal commerce power, or the Necessary and Proper Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.

Gary Lawson and I explain why, in an article published last week by Yale Law Journal Online.

In short, the Necessary and Proper Clause expressed the well-known agency law doctrine of principals and incidents. That is, the grant of power to an agent (and the federal government was an agent of the people, to exercise certain delegated powers) was considered to include incidental powers. (Unless the parties specified to the contrary.) To be an incidental power, a power had to be subsidiary to, inferior to, and “less worthy” (in the language of the time) than the principal power. So if A delegates to B the power to manage A’s farm for five years, B could lease part of the farm to C for a few years, but B could not sell the farm. The power to sell the farm is not an “incident” of the power to manage a farm. It is a power that is as great as the power to manage the farm.

Thus, the first half of Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch wrestles with the question of whether the power to establish a corporation (here, the 2d Bank of the United States) can be considered an “incident” of the enumerated congressional powers. This portion of the opinion is often expurgated from constitutional law textbooks. But not from Randy Barnett’s Constitutional Law: Cases in Context.

So is the power to order people to engage in commerce with certain corporations “incidental” to the enumerated power “to regulate Commerce . . .  among the several States”? Lawson and I argue that the power to compel intrastate commerce is of at least equal “dignity” as the power to regulate voluntary interstate commerce. Thus, the individual mandate cannot be justified a “necessary and proper” to the exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Further, the word “proper” affirms the agency/fiduciary law rule that an agent  must act reasonably, and when he is acting on behalf of several principals must treat the principals equally. So in Rooke’s Case, it was unreasonable that the entire costs of a water control project were imposed on a single landowner, when other landowners also benefited from the project. In Leader v. Moxon (1773) paving commissioners were unreasonable when they ordered a road repair that effectively buried the doors and windows of the plaintiff’s house, making plaintiff bear the entire burden of a project that was supposedly for the benefit of him and others. In the Founding era, government creation of a monopoly was the paradigm example of a government act that was not “proper,” because the monopolist was benefited to the detriment of everyone else.

In 1787, a consumer could at least choose not to buy the monopolist’s product.  ”The conclusion is clear: if a commercial monopoly—which citizens may avoid by not purchasing the product monopolized—is constitutionally void as ‘improper,’ then far more ‘improper’ is a mandate for the benefit of political favorites, which none but other political favorites may avoid. . . . [C]oerced commerce with congressionally favored oligopolists is constitutionally improper and void.”

Thus, if the Supreme Court follows the original meaning of the Necessary and Proper clause, and McCulloch v. Maryland‘s accurate exposition of that meaning, the Court will not rule in favor of the individual mandate as a necessary and proper exercise of the power to regulate interstate commerce.

My RegBlog post on the 11th Circuit’s recent decision striking down the individual mandate is now available here. The post considers the the ruling in more detail than my previous commentary on the subject.

RegBlog is a relatively new website established by the University of Pennsylvania Program on Regulation. For VC readers who may be interested, it has lots of good commentary by scholars and public officials on a variety of regulatory issues.

Newsday has published an op ed I wrote on the 11th Circuit decision striking down the individual mandate. Because of very tight space constraints, I was unable to cover many of the nuances of the decision. But the op ed does summarize my main thoughts on it:

Last week’s Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the individual mandate in President Barack Obama’s health care plan is an important milestone. The court correctly recognized that there is no way to uphold the mandate without giving Congress unlimited power to mandate anything....

The ruling was co-authored by Judge Frank Hull, who became the first Democratic judge to vote to strike down the mandate. This undercuts already dubious claims that the lawsuits are frivolous; her opinion signals that the arguments against the mandate are strong enough to persuade at least one appellate judge likely to favor it on political grounds.

Since another federal appellate court, the Sixth Circuit, recently upheld the law, it’s extremely likely that the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case within the next year....

Defenders of the mandate claim this is a special case because everyone eventually uses health care at some point. But the argument relies on shifting the focus from health insurance to health care. The same bait-and-switch tactic can justify any other mandate.

For example, not everyone eats broccoli. But everyone does participate in the market for food. Therefore, a mandate requiring everyone to purchase and eat broccoli would be permissible under the federal government’s logic, as would any other purchase requirement. As the Eleventh Circuit puts it, “the government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Whatever we do, we are always implicitly making decisions not to purchase some product or other, and those choices all have economic effects.

SCOTUSblog has just posted my contribution to their symposium on the individual mandate litigation. I interpreted the assignment as focusing primarily on the future prospects of the individual mandate challenges, rather than on the question of whether they deserve to win. So I focused primarily on the former question, even though some other participants in the symposium seem to have concentrated more on the latter. For those interested in my take on the normative question, I summarized it here. Here’s an excerpt from the SCOTUSblog post:

The Supreme Court may hear at least one of the cases challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care bill’s individual mandate sometime during the next year. If it does, the result will have major implications for our system of constitutional federalism. If the federal government prevails, Congress is likely to have an unlimited power to impose mandates of any kind. If the plaintiffs win, the Court will have reaffirmed the importance of constitutional limits on federal power....

Every judge who has ruled on the issue has recognized that Congress has never previously imposed a comparably sweeping mandate under the Commerce Clause, and that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether Congress has a general power to regulate inactivity. Given the deep ideological divisions over the case and the lack of precedent clearly on point, the Court could easily rule either way.

Nonetheless, the federal government probably has a better chance than the plaintiffs. The Court’s four most liberal Justices have consistently refused to recognize any meaningful limits on Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the mandate will be upheld if even one of the five conservatives votes in its favor. And the conservatives have often been a fractious bunch in federalism cases....

At the same time, it is also possible that the conservative Justices will be unwilling to uphold the mandate because doing so is likely to give Congress unconstrained authority to impose virtually any other mandate. In the recent case of Bond v. United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy – a key swing voter – emphasized that constitutional constraints on federal power protect “the liberty of the individual” as well as “state sovereignty.” If the Court gives Congress unlimited power to impose mandates, that principle will be gutted. Thus, the Justices are likely to uphold the mandate only if they can find some way to do it without giving Congress a blank check to impose future mandates at will. Unconstrained congressional authority to impose mandates also goes against the text and original meaning of the Constitution, a consideration that might sway the originalists on the Court.

SCOTUSlog has also recently published several other contributions to the Symposium, including this one by co-blogger Jonathan Adler, and this one by Cory Andrews of the Washington Legal Foundation, with whom I have worked on several amicus briefs in the individual mandate cases on behalf of WLF, a group of constitutional law scholars, and several members of Congress. Obviously, the symposium also includes various contributions by prominent defenders of the mandate, with more to come. Check it out!

A recent Yale Law Journal Online article by Northwestern law professor Andrew Koppelman argues that the Obamacare individual mandate is obviously constitutional, especially in light of how McCulloch v. Maryland construed the Necessary and Proper clause. Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform (April 2011).

Gary Lawson (Boston Univ.) and I partially agree:

Professor Koppelman evidently believes that the constitutionality of the individual mandate begins and ends with McCulloch v. Maryland. He is absolutely right about that. He simply has the wrong beginning and ending.

Professor Koppelman gets the beginning wrong because he starts his analysis in the middle of the McCulloch opinion instead of where John Marshall began. Chief Justice Marshall‘s famous discussion in McCulloch of the causal connection required by the word “necessary” was preceded by a seven-page analysis of the constitutionality of a federal corporation under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Those seven pages dealt with an issue that Marshall recognized had to be addressed before he decided whether a corporation was a causally “necessary” (or otherwise “proper”) means for implementing federal powers. The threshold question was whether the power to incorporate was incidental or principal.

Our article, Bad News for Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality of the Individual Mandate, elucidates the original meaning of the Necessary and Proper clause, which Chief Justice Marshall considered so important, but which professor Koppelman overlooked:

The Necessary and Proper Clause incorporates basic norms drawn from eighteenth-century agency law, administrative law, and corporate law. From agency law, the clause embodies the venerable doctrine of principals and incidents: a law enacted under the clause must exercise a subsidiary rather than an independent power, must be important or customary to achievement of a principal end, and must conform to standard fiduciary obligations.

From administrative law, the Necessary and Proper Clause embodies the closely-related principle of reasonableness in the exercise of delegated power, which independently requires conformance with a similar set of fiduciary norms, including the norms of acting only within delegated jurisdiction and of treating all persons subject to a public agent‘s power impartially.

Evidence from eighteenth-century corporate law – and the Constitution was widely recognized in the founding era as a type of corporate charter – confirms these conclusions about the meaning of the phrase “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . .”

The power to order someone to purchase a product is not a power subordinate or inferior to other powers, such as the power to regulate voluntary commerce. The power to compel commerce is at least as significant – or, in eighteenth-century language, as “worthy” or of the same “dignity” – as the power to regulate insurance pricing and rating practices. It is therefore not incidental to other powers exercised by Congress in the PPACA and must be separately enumerated if it is to exist.

Second, the doctrine of principals and incidents and the principle of reasonableness both embody the fiduciary norm that agents exercising delegated power must treat multiple principals subject to those agents’ power impartially. Interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause to allow Congress to force private dealings with preferred sellers of products fails that basic fiduciary norm, as illustrated by founding-era concerns about Congress invalidly using the Necessary and Proper Clause power to create monopolies.

That’s the argument of an Independence Institute amicus brief submitted to the 11th Circuit in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. Here’s the summary of argument:

The Necessary and Proper Clause was one of a large family of similar clauses commonly appearing in eighteenth-century legal instruments delegating authority from one party to another. Those clauses followed several possible formulae. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a specimen of the most restrictive of those formulae: It does not actually grant additional authority beyond that conveyed by other enumerated powers. Rather, it is a recital, designed to inform the reader of two legal default rules: 

First, that express grants of enumerated powers, stated elsewhere, carry with them subsidiary incidental powers (“necessary”). 

Second, that congressional enactments must comply with standards of fiduciary obligation and administrative reasonableness (“proper”).

This understanding of the Clause appears in the legal practices and leading cases at the time the Constitution was adopted, and also in the history of the Clause itself—the records of its drafting, in the ratification debates, in the Supreme Court’s great case on the subject, M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), and in Chief Justice John Marshall’s public explanations of M’Culloch.

Once the meaning of the Clause is understood, the implications for the individual mandate are clear:

The mandate is not “necessary” because power to impose it is not a subsidiary “incident” to Congress’s Commerce Power. The power to compel the purchase of a product is as great or greater than the power to regulate voluntary commerce; therefore the mandate cannot be an incidental power regardless of how helpful it might be. For Congress to possess authority of that kind, it would have to be separately enumerated in the Constitution.

The mandate is not “proper” because it violates the fiduciary obligations of impartiality embedded in the word “proper.” During the debates over ratification, participants recognized that a law chartering a commercial monopoly would be “improper.” A fortiori, compelled purchase from favored oligopolists is improper.

Thus, to the extent that the constitutionality of the individual mandate depends upon the Necessary and Proper Clause, the mandate is unconstitutional.

Besides the Independence Institute, the amici on the brief are Prof. Gary Lawson (BU), Prof. Robert G. Natelson (retired from U. Montana Law; currently a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute); and Prof. Guy I. Seidman (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Israel). The three professors are among the co-authors of The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge, 2010).

The Jurist has posted my article on “Why the Individual Health Care Mandate is Unconstitutional.” The format allowed me to lay out the case against all three of the federal government’s rationales for the law more fully than in any previous popular press publication. Here’s an excerpt:

Twenty-eight states and several private groups have now filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the of the Obama health care plan. One of the cases was filed by twenty-six state governments and the National Federation of Independent Business in a federal court in Florida. Another was initiated by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a federal court in that state. Numerous other suits have been filed by a variety of private groups.

When the first of these suits began a year ago, many denounced them as frivolous political grandstanding. But it is increasingly clear that the plaintiffs have a real chance of winning. More importantly, they deserve to win because the mandate really is unconstitutional. If upheld, it would give Congress a dangerous power that greatly exceeds the bounds of the Constitution.

The cases focus primarily on challenges to the new law’s “individual mandate,” which requires most American citizens to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014 or pay a fine....

The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tax Clause of the Constitution. All three arguments have a common defect: if accepted by the courts, they would give Congress the power to enact virtually any mandate of any kind. Such a ruling would be unprecedented and would make a hash of the Constitution’s carefully defined limits on federal power.