Abstract
In 2010, few anticipated the fate of healthcare reform would rest with the Supreme Court. Yet National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [hereinafter NFIB] emerged as a watershed case that could remake the constitutional landscape. NFIB presented a conflict between two constitutional visions of federal power and the role of the courts in policing such limits--an unconstrained vision, under which limits on federal power are enforced primarily through the political process, and a constrained vision, under which constitutional limits on federal power are enforced by the courts. The contrasting views of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion did not reflect different applications of settled principles so much as allegiance to competing visions of federal power. This Article details this conflict, its resolution by NFIB, and possible future implications.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2014
Publication Information
62 Drake Law Review 937-979 (2014)
Repository Citation
Adler, Jonathan H., "The Conflict of Visions in NFIB v. Sebelius" (2014). Faculty Publications. 2295.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/2295
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Comments
Written for the symposium The U.S. Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision and Its Significance for the 50th Anniversary of LBJ's Great Society (2014) at Drake University Constitutional Law Center.