Independent Business Vs Sebelius Case Analysis

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Congress’ taxation power, but deemed it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, which is in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. The conservative Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in this decision known as the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, claiming that Congress can only regulate existing articles, and cannot create new articles to be regulated. His opinion was met with criticism, with commentators suggesting that he had betrayed the conservative agenda. In agreement with the commentators, not only did Roberts betray the political conservative agenda, he also damaged his own conservative

Since 1824 when Chief Justice John Marshal declared that navigation was a part of commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court has repeatedly diminished state and individual rights, and has expanded Congressional commercial power. The decisions up till 2012 addressed the differences between direct and indirect effects on commerce, substantial effect on commerce, etc. However, none addressed the notion that an article must be “already existing” in order to be regulated. In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that Congress cannot create new items to regulate, and is limited to regulating already existing articles. He continued to say that all cases concerning the Commerce Clause have one thing in common, in that they all understand commerce as reaching activity. To determine, whether his decision was consistent with previous Court decisions, one can look at previous cases concerning the Commerce Clause in order to determine whether the articles in question were already existing or

Filburn, the Court claimed that whether an article is meant for commerce or not is irrelevant if it has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts cites this case in his opinion, validating his theory that even though Wickard v. Filburn was “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over interstate activity,” there was an already existing article (i.e. grown wheat) to be regulated. Similarly, in United States v. Darby Lumber Company, the Court claimed that substandard labor conditions have a significant impact on interstate commerce. In this case, the challenged statute was regulating shipping and producing of good for commerce by companies who paid less than minimum wage or made their employees work over forty hours without overtime pay. These companies, too, were already existing and hence, could be regulated. The same applies to other cases such as regulating private business to deter racial discrimination in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, or regulating private business so that they recognize unions and pay minimum wage in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel