Should Congress Block the Supreme Court From Citing Obamacare Cases As Precedent? (H.R. 177)

What is H.R. 177?

(Updated November 14, 2019)

This bill would prohibit the Supreme Court from citing specific cases related to the Affordable Care Act from being cited as precedent in all future cases after the legislation is enacted. The cases that would be barred from citation are , , and . Congress has the authority under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to provide exceptions and regulations for the Supreme Court’s consideration of cases.

The cases involved played a significant role determining the legality of provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The upheld Congress’s power to enact most of Obamacare; upheld state exchanges and premium tax credits to qualifying persons; while allowed closely held (i.e. not publicly traded) businesses to be exempt from a law’s mandates on religious grounds if there’s a less restrictive way of furthering the law’s interests.

Argument in favor

Congress has the ability to restrict the cases that the Supreme Court can cite as precedent, and it should do so to ensure that the Obamacare cases don’t play a role in future rulings.

Argument opposed

The Supreme Court made the correct rulings in these three cases and Congress shouldn’t try to prevent them from being cited as precedent in the future, and this bill may be unconstitutional.

Impact

The Supreme Court.

Cost of H.R. 177

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced this bill to “bar the Supreme Court from citing Obamacare in forthcoming decisions as binding precedent” and added the following in a press release:

“By prohibiting the Supreme Court from citing Obamacare cases, we will be truly eradicating this unconstitutional policy from all three branches of government so that the repeal will be complete. Furthermore, we must work to restore Article I authority and the Rule of Law by ensuring Congress is the only entity of our government making or changing laws.”

Some have argued that this legislation, if it were to become law, could be found unconstitutional. Prof. Eugene Volokh, who writes for the Washington Post and teaches at the UCLA School fo Law offered the following criticism:

“Congress can’t prescribe a rule of decision for courts (except by changing the law on which the decision was based)... Likewise, Congress can’t try to strip precedents of their precedential value (again, except by actually changing the law on which the precedents were based). Article III, section 2 gives Congress the power to limit courts’ jurisdiction, but not the power to constrain the courts’ reasoning.”

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Press Release
  
• Lawnewz
  
• Talking Points Memo
  
• Washington Examiner