The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court’s Decision and its Implications, Nathaniel Persily, Gillian Metzger, and Trevor Morrison, eds., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming
31 Pages Posted: 26 Oct 2012 Last revised: 3 May 2013
Date Written: October 26, 2012
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution has often been at the center of debates over the limits of federal power. But in the first 220 years of its history, the Supreme Court never gave us anything approaching a comprehensive analysis of what it means for a law to be “proper.” The Court’s recent decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act individual health insurance mandate in NFIB v. Sebelius helps fill this gap. It moves constitutional jurisprudence closer to the proper meaning of proper.
In this article, I explain why Chief Justice John Roberts’ key swing-vote opinion was right to conclude that the individual health insurance mandate requiring most Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is outside the scope of Congress’ power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, because it is not "proper."
Part I shows that the Necessary and Proper Clause compels laws authorized by the Clause to meet two separate requirements: necessity and propriety. Both the original meaning of the Clause and Supreme Court precedent support this interpretation. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be reduced to a mere “Necessary Clause” that renders the word “proper” meaningless.
Part II argues that the individual health insurance mandate is improper because upholding it under the Clause would have given Congress virtually unlimited power to impose other mandates, and also render large parts of the rest of Article I of the Constitution redundant. This is consistent with a relatively minimalistic reading of the word “proper.” I consider and reject various attempts to prove that the health insurance mandate is a special case different from other mandates. I also briefly discuss a broader interpretation of the Clause: that the power to impose mandates on the general population is not a power “incidental” to Congress’ other enumerated powers, but rather a major independent power of its own. Both the minimalistic and broad interpretations of “proper” lead to the same conclusion in the mandate case.
Finally, Part III briefly discusses the possible future implications of Roberts’ interpretation of propriety. Here, much depends on the future composition of the Supreme Court and other contingent factors. There is also an ongoing debate over whether the Chief Justice’s Necessary and Proper reasoning is mere dictum that does not bind lower courts. But it is possible that the ruling will have a noteworthy impact in curtailing future federal mandates. Future courts might also build on the NFIB’s interpretation of “proper” as a tool for incrementally strengthening limits on federal power.
Keywords: ACA, Alexander Hamilton, Commerce, Comstock, Committee of Detail, convention, Donald Verrilli, due force, Edmund Randolph, federalism, Federalist Papers, framers, judicial review, Maryland, M’Culloch, Originalism, Paul Clement, preexisting conditions, Printz, sick, statutory, tax, United States
JEL Classification: H11, H51, I18, K23, K32
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Somin, Ilya, The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of 'Proper' (October 26, 2012). The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court’s Decision and its Implications, Nathaniel Persily, Gillian Metzger, and Trevor Morrison, eds., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-73. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2167381