Obamacare

Fifth Circuit Sends Obamacare Severability Issue Back to Square One—But Not Quite

The appellate court remanded the most important issue in the case back to the district court. But its instructions will make it difficult for the trial judge to again rule that the entire Affordable Care Act must fall with the individual mandate.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision ruling that the individual health insurance mandate is now unconstitutional in the wake of the 2017 tax reform law, which eliminated the monetary penalty that previously been imposed on violators. At the same time, however, it vacated the trial court ruling holding that the the rest of the Affordable Care Act must fall along with the individual mandate, and remanded the case back to district Judge Reed O'Connor for further analysis of which parts of the ACA are "severable" from the individual mandate, and which ones are not. The case, initially filed by 20 GOP-controlled state governments last year, will continue on remand, and the one thing that can safely be said about it is that this litigation is far from over.

I agree with most of what co-blogger Jonathan Adler writes in his post about the ruling. Here, I add a few additional points on the severability issue. While the Fifth Circuit did not resolve that question, it did make it difficult for Judge O'Connor to simply repeat his earlier ruling that the entire ACA must go.

In her majority opinion, Judge Jennifer Elrod ruled that the individual mandate is now unconstitutional because, with the repeal of the attached penalty, it can no longer be considered a tax, which is the only reason why it was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. Unlike Jonathan and most other commentators, I think this part of the case is actually important. I explained the reasons why here. I therefore agree with and welcome the part of the Fifth Circuit's decision ruling that the mandate is now unconstitutional.

Most observers, however, do not care much about the fate of the now largely neutered mandate. Their focus is on the fate of the rest of Obamacare, which depends on the resolution of the severability issue. On that point, the Fifth Circuit has essentially ordered Judge O'Connor to go back to square one:

Although we understand and share the district court's general disinclination to engage in what it refers to as "legislative guesswork…," we nevertheless conclude that the severability analysis in the district court opinion is incomplete in two ways.

First, the opinion gives relatively little attention to the intent of the 2017 Congress, which appears in the analysis only as an afterthought despite the fact that the 2017 Congress had the benefit of hindsight over the 2010 Congress [that initially enacted the ACA]: it was able to observe the ACA's actual implementation. Although the district court opinion states that burdening insurance companies with taxes and regulations without giving them the benefit of compelling the purchase of their product is "a choice no Congress made," it only links this observation to the 2010 Congress. It does not explain its statement that the 2017 Congress' failure to repeal the individual mandate is evidence of an understanding that no part of the ACA could survive without it.

Second, the district court opinion does not do the necessary legwork of parsing through the over 900 pages of the post-2017 ACA, explaining how particular segments are inextricably linked to the individual mandate. The opinion lists a few examples of major provisions and cogently explains their link to the individual mandate, at least as it existed in 2010. For example, the opinion discusses the individual mandate's interplay with the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions—all of which are found in Title I of the ACA—analyzing how Congress intended those provisions to work and how they might be expected to work without the individual mandate. But in order to strike the delicate balance that severability analysis requires, the district court must undertake a similar inquiry for each segment of the post-2017 law that it ultimately declares unlawful—and it has not done so. Instead, the district court opinion focuses on the 2010 Congress' designation of the individual mandate as "essential to creating effective health insurance markets" and intention that, for at least one set of legislative goals, the individual mandate was intended to work "together with the other provisions" of the ACA….On this basis, and on the views of the dissenting Justices in NFIB addressing the ACA as it stood in 2012, the district court opinion renders the entire ACA inoperative. More is needed to justify the district court's remedy….

It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not. But it is no small thing for unelected, life-tenured judges to declare duly enacted legislation passed by the elected representatives of the American people unconstitutional. The rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today.

In one sense, the Fifth Circuit is inviting the district court to do a complete do-over, and in the process leaves all options open. After all, Judge Elrod's opinion specifically says that final decision could end up ruling either that "none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate" or that "all of the ACA is severable." And, of course, there are lots of intermediate options between these polar opposites.

The Fifth Circuit has "direct[ed] the district court to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate," without predetermining the outcome of that inquiry. However, Judge Elrod also emphasizes that the trial court must consider the intent of the 2017 Congress that neutered the individual mandate, not just that of the 2010 Congress that initially enacted the ACA.

To the extent that the intent of the 2017 Congress gets any significant weight at all, it is difficult to conclude that any other part of the ACA cannot be severed from what's left of the individual mandate. After all, if the 2017 Congress really believed that the mandate was essential to the workings of any other part of the Act, it would not have rendered it virtually toothless, while simultaneously leaving all other parts of the law in place. Along with a cross-ideological group of other legal scholars, Jonathan Adler and I developed this point in greater detail in two amicus briefs we have filed in this case (see here and here). I also addressed this issue in my post criticizing Judge O'Connor's trial court ruling.

In addition to the need to consider the intent of the 2017 Congress, Judge O'Connor will also have to give due weight to a recent Fifth Circuit en banc decision holding that courts addressing severability issues should sever as little of the statute in question as possible. That, too, will make it hard to rule that all or most of the rest of the ACA should fall along with the mandate.

Overall, I largely agree with the analysis of severability in Judge Carolyn Dineen King's dissenting opinion in the Fifth Circuit, where she emphasizes that 2017 Congress already decided the issue, leaving little for courts to do:

The majority has identified the most glaring flaw in the district court's severability analysis: the district court "gives relatively little attention to the intent of the 2017 Congress, which appears in the analysis only as an afterthought." When one takes this fact into account, there can be little doubt as to Congress's intent.

We have unusual insight into Congress's thinking because Congress was given a chance to weigh in on the ACA's future without an effective coverage requirement and it decided the ACA should remain in place. By zeroing out the shared-responsibility payment, the 2017 Congress left the coverage requirement unenforceable. If Congress viewed the coverage requirement as so essential to the rest of the ACA that it intended the entire statute to rise and fall with the coverage requirement, it is inconceivable that Congress would have declawed the coverage requirement as it did….

For this reason, I agree with Judge King that the Fifth Circuit probably should have just ruled that all of the rest of the ACA is severable from the mandate, without remanding the case back to the district court. But I can also understand the majority's desire to have the trial court go over each relevant provision of the ACA with a "fine-toothed comb" to see whether any of them may be inextricably linked even to a neutered mandate. Given the complexity of Obamacare, such caution is understandable, even though probably unnecessary.

In addition to remanding the severability issue back to the trial court, the Fifth Circuit also remanded the issue of the scope of the relevant remedy (should the trial court again rule that some or all of the rest of the ACA is inseverable from the mandate). The key issue here is whether the right remedy is a nationwide injunction or one limited to the plaintiff states. The latter could lead to a difficult situation, where some or all of the ACA is operative in some parts of the country, but not in others.

When Judge O'Connor does eventually redo the severability analysis, the issue is likely to come right back to the Fifth Circuit, as whichever side loses is likely to appeal. But if the Fifth Circuit is at all serious about the need to give weight to the intention of the 2017 Congress and to sever as little as possible, it is unlikely that much—if any—of the rest of the ACA will ultimately fall along with the individual mandate.

Thanks to the Fifth Circuit decision, the Obamacare severability litigation is likely to continue for a long time to come. But the end result is unlikely to be the end of Obamacare, or anything close to it.

As I have emphasized before, we should be cautious about making predictions on the future of ACA-related litigation, because expert predictions on that score—my own included—have often been wrong in the past. Still, today's ruling does not bode well for those who want the courts to use severability analysis to strike down all or most of the rest of the ACA in addition to the individual mandate.

NOTE: Although I have joined two amicus briefs in this case, the opinions expressed in this and other posts about it reflect only my own views, not necessarily those of the other scholars who joined the briefs.

This might also be a good place to point out that I did not join these briefs because I am a fan of Obamacare. Much the contrary. I authored an amicus brief against the Obamacare individual mandate in the initial 2011-12 challenge to its constitutionality, and also wrote a coauthored book and various articles arguing that it and some other parts of the law are unconstitutional. I would be happy to see the ACA repealed. But that is no reason to butcher severability doctrine in the present case.

In addition to the strictly doctrinal reasons to avoid doing so, I also worry that institutionalizing a theory of inseverability broad enough to bring down the rest of the ACA along with the neutered mandate, would lead future courts to be reluctant to invalidate unconstitutional elements of large, complex laws. If virtually any provision of a law can become the proverbial nail that loses the entire battle if it is removed, many judges are likely to refuse to remove the nail, even if it is unconstitutional. Conservatives and libertarians who hope to use this case to get rid of Obamacare should consider the possibility that doing so might handicap future efforts to curb unconstitutional big-government programs.

NEXT: Donald Trump Just Became the Third President To Be Impeached

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can someone explain why intent of Congress is so important here but willfully ignored with transes and their access to the wrong sexed facilities?

  2. Imagine if Chief Justice Roberts, instead of his legally embarrassing “mandate is a tax” opinion, had just declared the mandate unconstitutional and preserved the rest of the law.

    Because that will likely be the net result.

  3. The first name that pops in your head or for anyone in this 20th and 21st century when they hear the word, “Bucket Chicken”, will definitely be KFC. KFC is one of the top fast-food restaurants in the world and is famous worldwide for its amazing taste and crunchy chickens, since 1930. 9 decades have already passed and the fame and name of KFC have not vacated its place from the food industry or in the minds of people. KFC is a vision of Colone Sanders, whose image is the logo, which is also an attractive part of this restaurant. Do Visit: https://mykfcexperiencefeedback.com/

  4. I think this entire line of analysis is doomed to failure because it is premised on ignoring everything we know about how politics really happens and instead adopting a fiction that the 2017 Congress is a unitary entity that actually “thought about” these issues in any systematic way.

    Yes, that means that all such analyses of “what Congress intended” should be thrown out as fictions. Unless they wrote their reasons down on a document that they actually voted on and passed, it’s unsustainable speculation which ignores the often-contradictory reasons why bills get passed.

  5. I really don’t follow your arguments about why you can’t have a $0 tax. I agree completely a rule that said you had to get insurance or you will go to prison wouldn’t be a tax but why isn’t a rule that says you have to get insurance or pay us $0.

    I mean suppose instead the tax had been .1 cents but after going through all the tax codebit became clear the way the rounding rules worked it would never cause you to pay more in taxes. Still seems like a tax to me.

    1. I believe the aspect that matters to that stunner is the SCOTUS decision that the penalty for non-compliance “acted” like a tax. At a penalty of zero it doesn’t “act like a tax“ anymore. If the constitutionality of something hinges in it acting like a tax and it no longer acts like a tax, then the constitutionality of it does indeed change.

      To put it differently, had the 2017 congress instead provided a tax credit that only people not buying the product that effectively zeroed the result one might argue the tax is still there. But setting the actual rate to 0 is not the same thing.

  6. I’ve yet to see any “Reason” pieces that show evidence of reason in the construction. 0bamacare is such a glaringly corrupt partisan disaster that I simply can’t fathom how anyone can fail to loathe and oppose the monstrosity.

  7. I seem to recall that severability was particularly relevant for ACA since (due to Scott Brown’s election) the Senate had to accept the House version verbatim. The House version sloppily lacked the normal severability clause which they presumed they could add later during conference but ultimately could not.

    If that’s true, then the possibility of this case “butchering serverability doctrine” as broad precedent would seem to be greatly reduced– as long as future congresses bother to include the necessary clauses, the fate of the ACA’s severability would not be relevant.

    1. This ^. I don’t understand all the hands-wringing about severability, when the ACA is lacking a proper severability clause. That isn’t the Court’s problem. Congress screwed the pooch. I’m not a lawyer, but I believe it is rather well established legal precedent, that absent a severability clause, any key aspect of a law that gets stricken, brings down the whole thing. Why should the courts be in the business of trying to salvage the “intent of Congress”, when Congress did not state their desired resolution should such a key mandate be stricken?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.