Heed Not the Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called NFIB)
University of Kentucky College of Law
January 29, 2013
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Heightened Scrutiny, Vol. 15, No. 43, 2013
A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: Supreme Court, NFIB v. Sebelius, Medicaid, federalism, health reformAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 8, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.812 seconds