In NFIB v. Sebelius, how did the Court characterize the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act?

• A. A constitutional tax under Congress's taxing power
• B. A regulation of interstate commerce
• C. A mandate that cannot be severed from the act
• D. A legitimate exercise of the Commerce Clause power

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax, not as a regulation of interstate commerce. The Court explained that the penalty for not buying insurance functions like a tax: it is collected by the IRS, paid into the Treasury, and serves to raise revenue. Even though the statute called the penalty a “mandate,” the constitutional basis for keeping it was Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes. The decision also treated the mandate as severable from the rest of the ACA, meaning the rest of the law could stand even if the mandate were read narrowly or struck down under other theories. This is why the mandate isn’t supported as a valid use of the Commerce Clause or as a non-severable provision; those paths were not the basis the Court chose.