(The Root) — Now that the dust has settled on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the bulk of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it is perhaps time to examine the decision from the perspective of a traditional civil rights advocate — a person who favors strong federal protection for the rights of vulnerable minorities and who favors certain state-level and private policies, such as affirmative action, designed to ensure inclusion of racial minorities in many aspects of American life. Of course, many now contend that traditional civil rights approaches are outmoded, but for those who keep faith with the tradition, the decision may spell trouble.
Commentary on the court’s decision has often praised Chief Justice John Roberts for his judicial statesmanship — as evidenced by his decision to join with the court’s four liberal justices in upholding the Affordable Care Act’s core provisions as a tax — while condemning Roberts for his activism, as evidenced by his decision to join with his fellow conservatives in holding that the core of the ACA could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause. Both aspects of Roberts’ key role in the decision, it turns out, should be of serious concern for many civil rights advocates.
Roberts and his fellow conservatives’ Commerce Clause ruling should be of serious concern not for its specific reasoning — that it’s unconstitutional for Congress to regulate “inactivity” (the decision not to buy health insurance) rather than activity — but for the justices’ determination to limit federal legislative power.
The chief justice began his opinion by emphasizing that the federal government possesses only limited powers, specifically enumerated in the Constitution, with much governing authority lodged in the states rather than the national government. As a general proposition, this is uncontroversial, but his four conservative colleagues were far more explicit in their joint dissent, in which they concluded that the entire ACA should be invalidated. Beginning with a citation of the rarely invoked 10th Amendment, they emphasized the “structural limits on federal power.”
The four justices noted, with evident disapproval, that “we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce,” suggesting that many major pieces of federal legislation enacted over the past 50 years are of questionable constitutionality. (For Justice Clarence Thomas, this is more than a suggestion, because he has explicitly repudiated [pdf] more than 70 years of Supreme Court decisions that justified the expansion of federal authority.)
Coupled with the chief justice’s decision to revise what many thought were well-settled Commerce Clause precedents, the dissent suggests that the court’s five conservative members are using an apparent liberal victory to lay the groundwork for further rulings that could narrow the scope of federal legislative power. Their rationale seems to be that limiting federal power in favor of localism helps preserve “the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,” as Roberts phrased it, quoting a well-known court ruling from the 1990s.