The two theories the government relied on are the Congress’ Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The individual mandate is a legal obligation requiring all people whose incomes surpass 150% of the federal poverty level to purchase health insurance. From the first theory, the Supreme Court established that the mandate was a tax imposed by Congress on people who failed to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Fiedler, 2020). It was argued that the mandate was not a punishment for the failure to purchase the insurance. Under the Supremacy Clause, the Court found that the individual mandate was a levy enacted through a justifiable congressional powers exercise, allowing Congress laws to prevail where the federal and state governments operate dually. Medicaid expansion is a provision in the ACA broadening the eligibility criteria into comprehensive health insurance. The Supreme Court upheld the expansion by establishing its constitutionality as a lawful exercise of Congress’ power to formulate and impose taxes.
The Congress’ act of setting the shared responsibility payment at zero dollars in 2017 has led the Supreme Court to relook at the constitutionality of the ACA. This implies that the individual mandate cannot be deemed a constitutional taxation strategy since the associated financial penalty does not generate any revenue for the federal government. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, mainly because of the tax element. In 2017, Congress effectively eliminated the tax component of the law by setting the penalty at zero dollars (LaFontaine et al., 2019). In this regard, the tax aspect of the individual mandate was the law’s lynchpin, and its removal renders the legislation unconstitutional since it can no longer be considered a tax as no revenue is generated. From this dimension, the individual mandate is an indispensable and integral component against which the entire law is anchored. Consequently, if the Supreme Court establishes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the whole legislation should be invalidated.
The Supreme Court granted an injunction sought by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America against the enforcement of an executive order issued by New York’s Governor. Among the reasons why the judges deemed the restraining orders essential is that the applicants demonstrated the discriminatory and biased nature of the enforcement against religion. For instance, the secular and business establishments considered essential were allowed to admit an unlimited number of people at any given time, while churches and synagogues’ attendance was capped at 10. This means that if the Court did not issue the injunction, the plaintiffs would be disproportionately impacted by the executive order. Additionally, the church’s attendants would suffer irreparable harm as they miss critical traditions requiring personal attendance. As a state officer working for the state, I would recommend the designing and impositions of restrictions that reflected impartiality on businesses and religion. Further, the executive order should be narrowly tailored to mirror the infection patterns in the state without appearing biased against religion.
Although parental consent is essential in most health decisions, an emergency contraception program could succeed without parental involvement. In Carey v. Population Services International, the Supreme Court asserted the constitutional right to privacy for minors seeking to obtain contraceptives (Iles, 2020). This implies that although parental input is desirable, confidentiality is critical, and a school can provide emergency contraception without involving parents. Therefore, the program to avail emergency contraception pills to high school students can go forward without parental consent.
New York City County can pass laws regulating the size of containers used to serve sugary beverages in the city’s restaurants. Notably, the regulation and administration of interstate commercial affairs are reserved for counties and states, while Congress addresses trade between foreign countries and between states. For instance, the determination of such aspects of products as weights and other metrics is within the purview of the state. In this regard, the New York City Council can pass a law that would regulate the size of containers used in serving sugary beverages within the city.
References
Fiedler, M. (2020). The ACA’s individual mandate in retrospect: What did it do, and where do we go from here?. Health Affairs, 39(3), 429−435. Web.
LaFontaine, P. R., Vogenberg, F. R., & Pizzi, L. T. (2019). From then until now: A top-down view of the Affordable Care Act. P & T: A Peer-Reviewed Journal for Formulary Management, 44(8), 467–493.
Iles, S. (2020). Prescription Restriction: Why Birth Control Must Be Over-the-Counter in the United States. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 26(2), 389−422. Web.