California v. Texas: Avoiding an Antidemocratic Outcome.

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA") contains a section titled "Requirement to Maintain Essential Minimum Coverage." Colloquially known as the Individual Mandate, this section of the Act initially established a monetary penalty for anyone who did not maintain health insurance in a given tax year. But with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the monetary penalty was reset to zero, inducing opponents of the ACA to mount a legal challenge over the Individual Mandate's constitutionality. As the third major legal challenge to the ACA, California v. Texas saw the Supreme Court punt on the merits and instead decide the case on grounds of Article III standing. But how would the ACA have fared if the Court had in fact reached the merits? Did resetting the Individual Mandate penalty to zero uncloak the provision from the saving construction of Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius? This Note posits that, had the Court reached the merits, it would have found the Individual Mandate no longer met the requirements for classification as a tax under the rule relied on in NFIB. Moreover, it argues that the Court would have found the unconstitutional provision to be inseverable from the ACA insofar as it was integral to funding both the novel structure of the reformed healthcare system and the prohibition against insurance carriers denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This examination ultimately reveals that an outright repeal of the ACA would have been antidemocratic in the face of current consensus opinion that favors the reform and highlights the impact its abrogation would have had.