For the General Welfare: Finding a Limit on the Taxing Power after NFIB v. Sebelius

For the General Welfare: Finding a Limit on the Taxing Power after NFIB v. Sebelius

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate violated the Commerce Clause but upheld the mandate under the Taxing Power. While the Court’s decision has radically foreclosed congressional action under the Commerce Clause, it has allowed congressional authority under the Taxing Power to expand beyond the Commerce Clause. This departure from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence is significant. There has been much debate about how far congressional power under the Commerce Clause should extend. This Comment will make only a modest claim: regardless of your position on the Commerce Clause, the Court should treat congressional authority over the states the same under both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing Power. Because the power to tax can be used in a functionally identical way to regulating conduct, Congress can simply bypass limits on the Commerce Clause by using taxes. My claim that the Taxing Power should track the Commerce Clause is based on the text, structure, and history of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s Taxing Power jurisprudence. I will argue that the Court’s jurisprudence on the limits of the Taxing Power converges on two prominent themes: (1) subject matter that is reserved for the states, and (2) the extent of coercion or inducement of the tax in question. While some have questioned whether the Court, rather than another political branch, should be the one to decide, I will argue that judicial review of this and other federalism questions is necessary. I will situate my argument within the relevant academic literature, which is particularly on point for the distinction between taxes and penalties within the context of the Taxing Power and Commerce Clause. Drawing from this material, I will propose a doctrinal test for defining the limits of the Taxing Power. This test will presume that taxes that diverge from the Commerce Clause are unlawful unless rebutted after evaluating three criteria: (1) whether the exaction raises revenue, (2) whether the exaction is coercive, and (3) whether the subject matter in question belongs to the states. Lastly, I will apply the proposed test to hypothetical examples to demonstrate its contours, strengths, and weaknesses.


More in this Issue

From “Ladies First” to “Asking for It” : Benevolent Sexism in the Maintenance of Rape Culture

The problem of sexual violence against women has been analyzed with an eye to the causal significance of misogyny, but legal analysis has neglected the role played by other facets of sexism, including ostensibly “benevolent” sexism (or chivalry), in the perpetuation of rape culture, which normalizes this violence. Additionally, discussions of sexual violence often overlook […]

Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needless Concept

The fundamental law of contract formation has retained the formalistic character of classical contract law. The offer-andacceptance paradigm fits poorly with modern contracting practice, and it obscures and complicates contract doctrine. More importantly, extending it threatens to produce undesirable results. Instead of the offer-and-acceptance paradigm, this Essay proposes that contract formation be analyzed using the […]

Taxing the Cloud

Transacting business in the “cloud” has quickly gained popularity worldwide as the new method of providing information technology (IT) resources. Instead of purchasing or downloading software, we can now use the Internet to access software and other fundamental computing resources located on remote computer networks operated by third parties. These transactions offer companies lower operating […]