The Roberts Court usually hears around 70 to 80 cases a year. Most are of a dry and legalistic character, with little to capture the interest of students or teachers. However, there are times when the Court passes judgement on a case that could genuinely be considered a landmark.

1. Kevin Bloor, Head of Politics, Headington School, Oxford
Recent
developments
within the
Supreme Court
of the US
The Roberts Court usually hears around
70 to 80 cases a year. Most are of a dry
and legalistic character, with little to capture
the interest of students or teachers.
However, there are times when the Court passes judgement on a case
that could genuinely be considered a landmark. For instance, in the
case of Citizens United v. FEC (2010) the Court ruled that corporations
held the same first amendment rights as individuals. The Citizens
United ruling was significant in that it heralded an even greater
opportunity for wealthy interests to dominate the political process.
As a result of the case, the role and significance of PACs within
American politics has grown. More recently, the NFIB v. Sebelius
(2012) also provides us with a landmark case to consider. In order to
comprehend this innocuous sounding case, it is necessary to explore
the wider background.
The Affordable Care Act was a key element of President Obama’s
pledge to improve American society. He had finally secured the
long-cherished goal of liberal Democrats such as Ted Kennedy; that
of universal healthcare for all Americans. However, many opposed
the plans. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB)
along with 26 states decided to bring forward a test case on the
constitutionality of Obamacare. Their efforts centred upon the
individual mandate clause, which sounds rather technical but could
potentially lead to the Act being struck down by the Supreme Court.
Secondly, the judiciary plays a ‘political’ role in so far as it makes
judgements of an overtly political character. Many of the most
important political events within American history have been played
out in the court room, and not just the obvious examples of Brown
(desegregation of schools) and Roe (abortion). There is scarcely a
political issue within the States that does not at one time or another
come to the Court’s attention.
The third and final implication of the judgement was the wider
debate concerning judicial activism and judicial restraint. As with
many aspects of politics, the verdict offers something for both sides.
It could be argued that judges redefining a ‘penalty’ as a tax is an
example of judicial activism. However, it could also be claimed that
the judgement was based upon judicial restraint – in that it limited
the role of the federal government, showed proper respect for
judicial precedence and adopted a literal interpretation of the
constitution.
It is hoped this article might cast light upon the Supreme Court’s
business. All too often, students approach the section with the belief
that the cases mentioned will by dry and technical. However, this is
not the case. With a little explanation, this particular section can be
the most interesting of all.
The individual mandate clause requires every American to purchase
health insurance if they are not already covered by a work/stateprovided scheme. To a British person more familiar with the National
Health Service, the individual mandate hardly seems controversial.
However, to many Americans the clause is ‘socialistic’ and perhaps
even contrary to the very character of the people.
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act claimed that Congress has the
ability to require every American to obtain healthcare insurance or
impose a penalty under the ‘power to regulate commerce.’ However,
opponents of the scheme claimed that it was another illustration of
government overreach. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled
that Obamacare was constitutional and that the law would therefore
remain in place. The verdict was justified by the argument that
buying health insurance is a tax rather than a mandate, and
therefore within the remit of Congress.
The case of NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) demonstrates three very important
things to be aware of. Firstly, the judicial branch of government is
genuinely independent. Members of the Supreme Court are allowed
to reach their own verdict regardless of their supposed political
leanings. There is no better illustration in this particular case than
the role of Chief Justice John Roberts. Appointed by a Republican
President on an assumption that he would vote in a conservative
manner, Roberts surprised everyone by siding with the liberal bloc.
Questions
What are the dangers inherent within judicial activism?
Why was Mitt Romney supportive of the Citizens
United ruling?
Why is the case of US v. Windsor (2013) a landmark
judgement? You may need to research this.