By now we've all heard plenty about the individual mandate issue. But let's back up. Before the Court even reached that issue it had to decide whether - well - it could reach that issue.
The first issue in the health-care case was whether a challenge to the Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. Under this Act, one cannot challenge a tax until the tax has actually been assessed. In other words, because the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a tax, was the Court required to wait until the mandate went into effect in 2014?
In a relatively brief portion of the Court's lengthy opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said the answer is, "No." According to Roberts, because Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, the AIA did not bar the suit. It should be noted, however, that the Chief Justice was careful to explain that Congress' labeling the payment as a "penalty" cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. This rationale allowed the Court to decide the mandate issue and find that it was a tax.
Posted by State Bar staff
