|
Amy Coney Barrett on Health Care
|
|
|
Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required
most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be
declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government
action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
, Jun 17, 2021
Opposes ObamaCare and its religious exemption
Barrett has been clear on her views towards the Affordable Care Act. She has attacked both SCOTUS decisions that upheld ACA. Barrett took issue with Roberts' interpretation of the mandate saying he pushed it beyond plausible meaning, to save the law.
Barrett believed Scalia's dissent in 2015 was the better legal argument.Barrett also signed a letter to the Obama administration critical of the ACA's religious exemption calling it a "cheap accounting trick," and an "assault on religious liberty."
Source: Analysis of positions in 2020 Trump Research Book
, Sep 22, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 20, 2022