Judicial Activism at the US Supreme Court - Essay Example

The decision by the US Supreme Court in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius marks a landmark decision where the Supreme Court ruled certain aspects of the HCERA and the ACA laws as unconstitutional. Although many groups declare that the decision of the Supreme Court is part of judicial activism, there is insufficient proof to support judicial activism. One of the main functions of the Supreme Court is to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. When the Supreme Court passed judgment over the health care laws, it was just exercising its power of judicial review. This power is based on the need to secure the rights of the minority in relation to the majority electorate and the need to ensure justice and fairness for the people. Judicial activism was not apparent in the recent Supreme Court decision even if the decision imposed certain changes in the law being passed. These are incidental results in the exercise of its functions, with the end goal of ensuring the compliance of the laws with the constitution. Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 3 Body…………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Overview of Supreme Court functions……………………………………….. 4 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius……………………. 5 Judicial review………………………………………………………………… 5 Judicial activism………………………………………………………………. 6 Judicial activism v. Judicial review…………………………………………… 7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….. 8 References…………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Judicial Activism Introduction In the recent historic decision by the US Supreme Court, the health care insurance policy initiated by President Barack Obama was upheld. In the landmark case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court supported the Congress’s power to implement majority of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA). With this decision, the legislative requirement for Americans to have health insurance by 2012 was upheld. This decision also supported the mandate to buy health insurance - an individual mandate - as a constitutional application of the legislative taxing power. Majority of the justices ruled that the individual mandate was not an effective application of the Congressional Commerce Clause or its Necessary and Proper Clause authority. Majority of the Supreme Court justices also assented to the fact that the expansion of the Medicaid was not a valid application of legislative spending power as it illegally mandates states to accede to the expansion or else lose their Medicaid financial privileges. This decision has been filled with various complications for the ACA and the HCERA, with significant changes in the original mandates passed by Congress. This prompted President Obama, as well as other analysts and interest groups to be cautioned against judicial policy-making or judicial activism. They further argue that the actions of the Supreme Court in these suspected cases of judicial activism are tantamount to a violation of the separation of powers. On the other hand, others are quick to argue that the judiciary is appropriately exercising its powers of adjudication, in the valid application of principle of checks and balances. Based on these opposing views, this paper shall discuss whether or not judges should be policy-makers and whether or not the Supreme Court health care decision written by Chief Justice Roberts is an example of judicial activism. This paper will be based on the decision itself, including related news media and think tank analyses. This essay is being carried out in order to establish a balanced understanding of judicial activism, one which is based on logical and well-supported arguments which can be used to guide future evaluations of judicial decisions. Body Overview of Supreme Court functions The US Supreme Court has the basic functions of supreme courts in most countries and territories. Article III, paragraph 1 of the constitution declares that the “judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”. The ultimate and primary function of the US Supreme Court is to ensure equal justice under the law. It is the highest body in the country for all cases and issues which arise from the constitution or other legislative mandates of the United States (Roosevelt, 2006). When considering these basic mandates alone, it can be argued that the Supreme Court was not acting as a judicial activist or as a judicial policy maker in its recent decision on the health care issue. Instead, it was simply applying its functions as an adjudicator. The fact that its judgment would effectively lead to amendments in the legislative mandates, are essential and incidental effects of its functions (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, n.d). Negating such effects would reduce the efficacy of the powers of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law and as the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius The case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was brought before the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction because of issues on its constitutionality. As such, the Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether or not the law passed by Congress was not against the constitution and whether it complied with all the mandates prescribed by the highest law of the land. The position of the Supreme Court is based on the strong commitment of the American people to protect the rule of law and the constitution (Gray and Burroughs, 1987). The Constitution is a well-balanced law and was penned in order to arm the national government with the strong and flexible tools in order to meet the needs of the state, and still be adequately constrained and just in the protection of the rights of the people (Gray and Burroughs, 1987). Moreover, the constitution is also meant to establish a balance in the needs of society in relation to the citizen’s right to freedom. In order to secure these goals, the authors of the Constitution established three independent and equivalent branches. The role of the Supreme Court within this system is based on its authority to evaluate laws and executive actions which, according to the court’s judgment, may conflict with the constitution (UKMC, n.d). This is known as the power of judicial review which has long ensured that the Supreme Court would have the crucial role in ensuring individual rights, including the maintenance of a constitution which can be constantly applied to complicated new situations and issues. Judicial review Although judicial review is not clearly indicated in the Constitution, it has long been expected as a judicial function even before the Constitution was passed. Even before 1789, the state courts have already been passing judgment over legislative policies which were against state constitutions (UKMC, n.d). The Founding Fathers, also believed that with the application of judicial review, the court would be able to ensure that the goals of all people, as indicated in the constitution, would be superior to the will of the lawmakers whose policies may only refer to the transient will of the people or the desires of a portion of the population only (UKMC, n.d). Madison also declared that the interpretation of the constitution must be based on the reasoned evaluation of independent justices, rather than to the changing tides and conflicts of political actors and processes (UKMC, n.d). If constitutional issues were to be evaluated based on political processes and negotiations, the Constitution would be relegated to nothing more than an arena of competing political and partisan interests. Judicially reviewing the new health care act and evaluating its constitutionality is considered part of the reasoned evaluation of the law, one which must be deemed legitimate based on the precedents already laid out. Judicial activism Others are however quick to declare that the Supreme Court’s actions overstepped the bounds of their power – skating towards policy-making which is a legislative function. In an article by law professor Jim Huffman, he declared that the courts must restrain, not facilitate, the government’s infringement on liberty (2012). Judicial acquiescence is appropriate in instances where Congress is acting within its powers and not violating the constitution. However, when the government oversteps its powers and threatens individual rights, the courts must actively enforce the provisions of the constitution (Huffman, 2012). Based on the decision of the Supreme Court the ACA changes the relations between the people and the federal government. According to the position of the government, the Congress can use its commercial power to force citizens to act in the way the government would have them act (Huffman, 2012). And this is unconstitutional. However, Huffman (2012) and other believers of judicial activism argue that the Supreme Court has forsaken the vision of the Founding Fathers in declaring that Congress can secure the above changes in the relations of the individual to the government in its reliance on its taxing and spending power. The Supreme Court effectively transformed a penalty imposed under the Commerce Clause into a tax under its taxing power (Huffman, 2012). Under these considerations, the Supreme Court is said to have overstepped its adjudicative goals, into legislative territory. Judicial activism v. Judicial review Although there are indeed legislative impositions made by the decision of the Supreme Court, these are impositions which are a necessary overflow of its power of judicial review. In the case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has long ruled that overturning unconstitutional laws are a necessary element of its duty to interpret and protect the constitution. Such oath would not be protected in any other way. It is primarily the duty of the judiciary to declare what the law is. In the exercise of its functions, measuring a law very much like the ACA and the HCERA and then finding it lacking in some aspects cannot be considered judicial activism because its decision and actions supports the very essence of its judicial functions (Richey, 2012). The duty of the courts is not only directed towards the judicial implementation of the Bill of Rights and other laws passed by Congress. The Constitution must also be interpreted in its entirety and its basic premise, especially in relation to the limitations founded on Congressional powers which are very much crucial to the protection of individual liberties, just like all other rights the court seeks to protect (Rivkin and Casey, 2012). Judicial activism is believed to involve the practice of judges letting their personal beliefs on public policy, as well as other subjective elements, to impact on their decisions (Carrese, 2003). Canon (1983) declares that judicial activism applies to instances where there is majoritarianism, interpretative stability, interpretative fidelity, substance/democratic process, and availability of an alternate policy-maker. It also refers to the act of ruling on a preferred evaluation of the constitution (Canon, 1983). Others have not been supportive of this evaluation of the court’s decisions. These individuals believe that judicial activism is nothing more than a subjective label, one which is basically equivalent to an individual not agreeing with the decisions of the Supreme Court (Tamanaha, 2010). They argue that although it may look like the Supreme Court is usurping the legislative of its lawmaking powers, its actions are a necessary and essential aspect of judicial review, one which must also change with the times (Ely, 1980). In instances when there may be gaps and uncertainties in the law, the judiciary is in the best position to make the choices and to fill in the gaps. Those who do not support the ideas expressed under judicial activism contend that the judiciary seeks to ensure checks and balances. In the process is also granting itself a bigger role in balancing the impact of majoritarianism, where there must be greater power attributed to the branch of government which is not directly under the power of the electorate in order to prevent the majority from dominating the minority via its elective position (Ely, 1980). In effect, there is no logical proof supporting the notion that the decision of the Supreme Court is tantamount to judicial policy-making because the Supreme Court has not passed any policy, nor has it overstepped its bounds in applying judicial review. Conclusion Based on the above premises and points of discussion, it is logical to argue that the decision of the Supreme Court is not tantamount to judicial activism or judicial policy making. Although other interest groups argue that the judiciary overstepped the bounds of its authority in passing judgment over the healthcare law, there is inadequate support for such a statement, most especially in the face of the fact that the Supreme Court is validly implementing its functions in relation to judicial review. The framers of the constitution have long intended the functions of the Supreme Court to include judicial review, a function which is meant to ensure that the rights of the people are protected, and that the other branches of the government are not acting against the mandates of the constitution. Although the end result of judicial review seems to imply judicial policy making, this end result is still very much a part of the Supreme Court functions giving more power and authority to the decisions of the court, over and above the other branches of the government supported by the majority electorate. References Canon, B. (1983). Defining the dimensions of judicial activism. Judicature, 66(6). Carrese, P. (2003). The cloaking of power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the rise of judicial activism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ely, J. (1980). Democracy and distrust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gray, L. and Burroughs, W. (1987). Constitutional issues: separation of powers. Social Education, 51(1), 28-30. Huffman, J. (2012). Obamacare ruling is judicial activism of the most pernicious sort. Daily Caller. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-is-judicial-activism-of-the-most-pernicious-sort/ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. Supreme Court 137 (1803) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. Supreme Court (2012) Richey, W. (2012). Would overturning health-care reform be 'judicial activism'?. CS Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0402/Would-overturning-health-care-reform-be-judicial-activism Roosevelt, K. (2008). The myth of judicial activism: making sense of Supreme Court decisions. Connecticut: Yale University Press. Rivkin, D. and Casey, L. (2012). Overturning ObamaCare isn't 'judicial activism'. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577355781393852136.html Tamanaha, B. (2010). Beyond the formalist-realist divide: the role of politics in judging. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law (n.d). The Supreme Court in the American system of government. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/supremecourtintro.html United States Constitution, Article III, paragraph 1 Read More