Which case upheld the authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance as a tax?

• A. Cooley v. Board of Wardens
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC
• D. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Answer: (D)

The situation tests how Congress can use its taxing power to shape behavior, not just the Commerce Clause. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the requirement to have health insurance could be sustained because the penalty for not buying insurance functions as a tax that the government can impose and collect through the IRS. The critical idea is that a law’s label isn’t decisive; what matters is the nature and operation of the obligation. If the consequence is a tax raising revenue, within Congress’s power to tax, then it can be constitutional even if it also affects behavior. The decision also clarified that the Medicaid expansion portion of the broader law exceeded constitutional bounds under the Spending Clause, though that part isn’t about the tax itself. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, Miranda v. Arizona, and Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC address different topics—federalism and local commerce regulation, Miranda rights, and administrative deference, respectively—so they don’t govern the issue of using a tax to enforce health insurance purchase.