National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Life was different back in the 1880s. The telephone had just been invented, James Garfield was president, and doctors used heroin and cocaine as medicine. Alas, many doctors knew very little about medicine. Oftentimes unsafe and unsterile practices were used on patients. The NY Times reports that, “At least a dozen medical experts probed the President [Garfield]’s wound, often with unsterilized metal instruments or bare hands, as was common at the time. Historians agree that massive infection, which resulted from unsterile practices, contributed to Garfield’s death. One man suggested that they turn the president upside down and see if the bullet would just fall out.” Because of …show more content…

On the first day, the court heard argument over whether the Tax Anti-Injunction Act passed into law in 1867 barred the Supreme Court from even making a decision in this case. The Tax Anti-Injunction Act says, “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.” Basically, it means that you cannot sue the government for a tax you believe is unfair, until you have already paid that tax. This was passed into law to prevent people from filing lawsuits against the government to avoid paying taxes. Potentially, this could mean that no one can challenge the constitutionality of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) until someone has actually paid the penalty. At the earliest, they could sue on April 15th, 2015. The Supreme Court held that since Congress specifically labeled the consequences of the mandate as a penalty rather than a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to this case, and that the court had the authority to hear the arguments. On the second day, the court heard arguments over whether the individual mandate component of the ACA fell under the constitutional powers of Congress. There were two arguments from the Solicitor General’s side (the ones supporting the constitutionality of the ACA): the ACA was constitutional under the commerce