Post Content

(Editor's Note: The United States Supreme Court announced  November 14 that it will hear a legal challenge to the national health care law with a decision expected in the summer of 2012.)

————————————————————————————————————————–

Reporter Sarah Kliff has noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has just ruled 2-1 that the federal health insurance reform law is constitutional.

(The great similarities between the federal law and the Massachusetts individual mandate law passed in 2006 are often observed since both are built on an individual mandate to acquire health insurance.)

While the question of constitutionality seems headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Circuit Court decision is notable if only for the fact that it was written by Laurence Silberman, who, as Kliff writes, "has a lengthy history of conservative legal thought."

Judge Silberman, she writes, "appointed by President Ronald Reagan, is the first Republican appointee to actually author an opinion that finds the health reform law, and its mandated purchase of health insurance, constitutional."

"What Silberman wrote in today’s opinion hews very closely to the legal argument that the Obama administration has pushed in the courts: The federal government has a constitutional right to regulate an individual’s choice not to purchase insurance, because that decision has an economic effect on others," Kliff notes.

She then takes an excerpt from Judge Silberman's opinion: " It suffices for this case to recognize, as noted earlier, that the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services."

Kliff notes that party affiliation has not necessarily been an accurate indicator of how judges view the federal health insurance law, and provides links to examples of judges appointed by Democrats ruling against the law and judges appointed by Republicans ruling in favor, but not in the starkly clear language employed by Judge Silberman.

The Christian Science Monitor surveys the Circuit Court scorecard (3 to 1 to uphold the law) but concludes "it ain't over 'til it's over."

In Slate, Simon Lazarus writes that Judge Silberman used a "strict constructionist" legal approach in drafting his opinion.

Written By:

Recent Posts

DOR Announces Updates to Offer in Compromise Program posted on Jan 10

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) has updated its Offer in Compromise (Offer) program to streamline the process and incorporate best practices. Offer overview An Offer is an agreement between the taxpayer and DOR to settle a tax liability for less than the full amount   …Continue Reading DOR Announces Updates to Offer in Compromise Program

In Case You Missed It… posted on Dec 14

In Case You Missed It...

“If it isn’t on YouTube, it might as well have never happened.”- Gordon Korman Videos, Videos, Videos! In our What’s New at DOR update we highlighted our MassTaxConnect video tutorials as well as four videos to guide you through 2022’s filing season. Since the tutorials launched, we provided both English and Spanish subtitles for every video. Subscribe to DOR’s YouTube channel to   …Continue Reading In Case You Missed It…

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! posted on Dec 13

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Opportunities for employment abound here at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. We are currently hiring for some of our key teams like the Fraud Unit, Tax, the Contact Center and the Collections Unit. What makes us stand out in the job market these days? Two   …Continue Reading Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!