The Question Is Not Moot: The Constitution and the Affordable Care Act

In anticipation of next week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution held a moot court on Monday to examine whether the Act’s “individual mandate” is a legitimate exercise of Congressional powers under the Constitution. The mandate requires all Americans to either procure health insurance or pay a penalty.

With current and former U.S. Court of Appeals judges presiding (along with two prominent constitutional lawyers), the (moot) court ruled eight to one that the mandate is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce even if, as opponents contend, the mandate regulates inaction (i.e. the choice to not buy insurance). The judges, including four appointed to the bench by the Presidents Bush, found that long-established precedents controlled the outcome of this case. With legal experts and journalists actively reading the tea leaves as to how the real Supreme Court will rule in the case (expected by the end of June), the question before the judges Monday was definitely not moot.

The Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution, housed at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, is funded in part by the Open Society Foundations.