Conservative justices deny Congress a power that Congress doesn't want

[Reposted, with new post-mortem comments from Randy Barnett, chief architect of the case against the mandate.]

The first really substantive part of the "syllabus" or executive summary of the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate and the ACA looked like Armageddon for the Administration:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30....

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

That is a straight exposition of the plaintiffs' core argument.  Congress cannot create commerce; Congress cannot regulate inactivity; Congress cannot compel commerce. It's a miracle that Roberts turned around and upheld the mandate as an exercise of Congress's taxing power.  But hasn't this decision dealt a blow to Congress's power to regulate commerce?  Does it kick off a rollback of the series of decisions in Roosevelt's second term that expanded that power?

Probably not. Congress's right to compel purchases is a conservative worry, not a liberal one. Verrilli's core "limiting principle" was essentially that insurance is unique (because you never know when you'll need the benefits), and health insurance a singularity within that singularity (because if you lack it, your fellow citizens will ultimately foot much of the bill).  And he meant it!

In his reply brief, Verrilli identified democratic accountability as the ultimate limiting principle that would confine the purchase mandate to health insurance:

"Verrilli, slapped silly, recovers willy-nilly" revisited

On March 28, I wrote in defense of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's performance in oral argument over the constitutionality of the individual mandate:

To a degree, I suspect that critics are projecting their own discomfort and shock at the apparent intense hostility to the mandate expressed by Scalia, Roberts and Alito at the outset onto Verrilli, concluding that he buckled under the pressure of hostile questioning. Maybe he did look and sound ill at ease -- the play's the thing, not the script. But if  he did not answer this point or that point at the particular moment when one critic or another thought appropriate, it was in large part because he was repeatedly interrupted.  Ironically, some of the interventions by Ginsburg and Breyer may have diverted him an early answer to the core question: what was his "limiting principle, " a line the federal federal government could not cross while exercising its power to regulate interstate commerce.

By my count, Verrilli was interrupted 44 times in 50 pages of testimony.  Plaintiff's counsel Paul Clement, who was more fluent, was interrupted just 12 times in 24 pages. Clement's co-counsel Michael Carvin was interrupted at a rate similar to Verrilli -- 25 times in 27 pages. But the intensity in the two halves of the proceeding was reversed:  the liberal justices got in the groove of defending the mandate near the end of the proceeding, while Verrilli was buzz-sawed most intensely at the outset -- 16 times in the 15 pages following his opening statement. 

It seems I undercounted the interruptions when picking over the transcript. This afternoon, former Office of Legal Counsel head Walter Dellinger argues in Slate:

My last best shot in defense of the ACA

[repost] I have a piece up at The Atlantic updating my case that the enemies of the ACA misrepresented the individual mandate in the Supreme Court, that the cadre of oppressed citizens they conjured up is a phantom, and that the law's creators worked under a self-imposed "limiting principle," doing their utmost to minimize the financial burden imposed by the mandate.

Below, a few posts that flesh various parts of the argument compressed in the Atlantic piece.  A full index of my posts on the ACA in the Supreme Court, along with outside sources relevant to my argument, is here.

Misrepresentation of the mandate in the Supreme Court: Why it still matters (5/10)

Three possible surprise rulings on the Affordable Care Act (6/15)
Attention, Justices Kennedy, Roberts et al: Read the young people's brief (5/5)  
The ACA offers catastrophic coverage: the AP notices  (4/10)
Marty Lederman concurs: the individual mandate could be trimmed, not killed (4/5)
Go tell the justices: the ACA has a catastrophic coverage option (3/31, updated 4/2)  

And, for the record, the 3/28 post by a healthcare attorney who picked up the plaintiffs' core card trick more or less in real time during oral argument: Ragbatz on the catastrophic coverage options in the ACA. 

The morality tale that may sink the ACA, cont.

I have a piece up at The Atlantic updating my case that the enemies of the ACA misrepresented the individual mandate in the Supreme Court, that the cadre of oppressed citizens they conjured up is a phantom, and that the law's creators worked under a self-imposed "limiting principle," doing their utmost to minimize the financial burden imposed by the mandate.

Below, a few posts that flesh various parts of the argument compressed in the Atlantic piece.  A full index of my posts on the ACA in the Supreme Court, along with outside sources relevant to my argument, is here.

Misrepresentation of the mandate in the Supreme Court: Why it still matters (5/10)

Three possible surprise rulings on the Affordable Care Act (6/15)
Attention, Justices Kennedy, Roberts et al: Read the young people's brief (5/5)  
The ACA offers catastrophic coverage: the AP notices  (4/10)
Marty Lederman concurs: the individual mandate could be trimmed, not killed (4/5)
Go tell the justices: the ACA has a catastrophic coverage option (3/31, updated 4/2)  

And, for the record, the 3/28 post by a healthcare attorney who picked up the plaintiffs' core card trick more or less in real time during oral argument: Ragbatz on the catastrophic coverage options in the ACA.  

A catastrophic error: The misrepresentation of the ACA's individual mandate in the Supreme Court

[I am reposting this at intervals.  Justice Kennedy: come in for some cookies and tea?] For those who've noted that, contra the 3/27 oral arguments in the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the ACA does in fact offer various catastrophic coverage options, an index of coverage of this issue, here and elsewhere:

Michael Carvin misrepresented the mandate in oral argument (4/12) 

Attention SG Verrilli and Justices Kennedy, Roberts: A plea for one more pleading (4/29)
Kaiser weighs in: the ACA offers catastrophic coverage to all comers (4/27)
Patient cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act (Kaiser Family Foundation. 4/27)
Another limiting principle for mandate: states can opt out (4/23)
Jonathan Cohn tells the justices: the ACA has catastrophic coverage options (4/20)
Will the justices make a catastrophic error? (Jonathan Cohn, 4/19)
The ACA offers catastrophic coverage: the AP notices  (4/10)
Supreme Court misunderstanding on health overhaul? (AP's Ricardo Alonso-Salvidar, 4/10)
Marty Lederman concurs: the individual mandate could be trimmed, not killed (4/5)
The bounded, minimalist way to uphold the ACA (Marty Lederman at Balkinization, 4/2)
Go tell the justices: the ACA has a catastrophic coverage option (3/31, updated 4/2)
Was Verrilli just the wrong man for the job? Part I (Ragbatz Tumblr, courtesy of Anon below, 3/28)

Verrilli's 'limiting principles' for the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act

In a post I put up immediately following the March 27 oral arguments in the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the individual mandate, I argued that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's difficulty articulating a "limiting principle" to the government's right to mandate purchases stemmed in large part from constant interruption by the justices -- and that Verrilli did eventually produce the demanded limiting principle (two, in fact).

Oral argument is a cauldron of conflict -- at least, this one was. What came out of Verrilli in broken syntax and shorthand on March 27 is stated with admirable precision in his reply brief to the plaintiffs' briefs against the constitutionality of the mandate.  Here I'd like to compare the oral and written.

Here's the first principle as stated in oral argument:

JUSTICE ALITO: Before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can? Congress can force people to purchase a product where the failure to purchase the product has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, if what? If this is part of a larger regulatory scheme?

GENERAL VERRILLI: We've got -

JUSTICEALITO: Is that it?

GENERAL VERRILLI: We've got -

JUSTICE ALITO: Is there anything more?

GENERAL VERRILLI: We got two and they are -- they are different. Let me state them. First, with respect to the comprehensive scheme. When Congress is regulating -- is enacting a comprehensive scheme that it has the authority to enact that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives it the authority to include regulation, including a regulation of this kind, if it is necessary to counteract risks attributable to the scheme itself that people engage in economic activity that would undercut the scheme. It's like -- it's very much like Wickard in that respect. Very much like Raich in that respect ( p. 44).

The mandate "is necessary to counteract risks attributable to the scheme itself that people engage in economic activity that would undercut the scheme" -- that is, obtaining medical care they cannot pay for because they are uninsured. Compare the tighter formulation in the reply brief:

Another 'limiting principle' to individual mandate: states can opt out

In the Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the justices who seemed hostile to the mandate challenged Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to articulate a "limiting principle" -- a rule that would place boundaries on Congress's right to mandate purchases. Verrilli did so, rather awkwardly:

When Congress is regulating -- is enacting a comprehensive scheme that it has the authority to enact that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives it the authority to include regulation, including a regulation of this kind, if it is necessary to counteract risks attributable to the scheme itself that people engage in economic activity that would undercut the scheme.

Much of the oral argument focused on the plaintiff's claims that the mandate exceeded the scope necessary to fulfill this purpose --  that it was was "forcing healthy individuals to immediately start paying inflated premiums that exceed their actuarial risk," as Michael Carvin's brief put it -- an argument that seemed to make a deep impression on Justices Alito, Roberts and Scalia. I have argued in several posts that the drafters of the ACA in fact took care on several fronts to limit the scope of the mandate to the minimum required to create a viable private market for affordable health insurance (e.g., by providing catastrophic coverage and limited-coverage options)-- in effect, that the mandate is self-limiting. I have further suggested that Justice Kennedy, who seemed troubled by the scope of the mandate but also recognized  the need to draw the relatively young and healthy into the insurance market, might either recognize the relatively narrow scope in his ruling or divide the baby by limiting the mandate to catastrophic coverage -- an argument developed with considerably more legal precision by Marty Lederman, who served in Obama's Office of Legal Counsel.

Here I want to focus on an element in Donald Verrilli's reply brief  that provides a complementary path to arguing either that the mandate is already sufficiently limited or that it might be further limited.