In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is constitutional as an exercise of Congress's taxing powers. Some people are unsure how to respond to the Court's decision. Supporters of the Act insist that Sebelius settled all challenges to the Act's constitutionality, and some opponents of the Act concede as much. Other opponents find it expedient to follow the Sebelius decision, for by making the individual mandate a constitutional tax it puts the Act’s proponents in a difficult position.
In a recent essay posted on National Review Online, Professor Eric Claeys argues for a third response: Refuse to respect Sebelius as the 'final' settlement of constitutional issues associated with the individual mandate. In this teleconference, Professor Claeys will recount the case for Madison departmentalism, and explain why officials elected this fall may legitimately refuse to accept Sebelius as settling the issues associated with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. Professor Michael Seidman will provide commentary.
- Prof. Eric R. Claeys, George Mason University School of Law
- Prof. Louis Michael Sediman, Georgetown University Law Center
Call begins at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.