Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
760 F.3d 1
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Section 5000A requires individuals to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage or pay a shared responsibility payment.
- Exemptions exist for religious conscience, health care sharing ministries, non-citizens, and incarcerated individuals.
- Matt Sissel, an artist and National Guard member, sues challenging the mandate under Commerce Clause and Origination Clause.
- District court dismissed; Sissel appeals, challenging both the individual mandate and the shared responsibility payment as a revenue bill under Origination Clause.
- Court assesses standing, then merits: NFIB framework sustains the tax-like structure under Congress’s taxing power.
- Court concludes the shared responsibility payment is not a Bill for raising Revenue under the Origination Clause, and NFIB supports constitutionality under taxing power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commerce Clause power to compel insurance | Sissel argues NFIB blocks enforcement of the mandate | Government contends taxing power sustains the mandate under NFIB | Commerce Clause challenge fails; upheld under taxing power |
| Origination Clause applicability to shared payment | Payment originated in Senate, not House, violating Origination Clause | Payment not a Bill for raising Revenue; Origination Clause not triggered | Not a Bill for raising Revenue; Origination Clause not violated |
| Standing to challenge the mandate | Sissel had standing based on anticipated penalties and exemptions | Standing lacking as of appeal; no ongoing injury | Sissel has Article III standing based on sworn statements and status as of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (Supreme Court 2012) (upheld the statute as a tax, not as a commandeering Commerce Clause mandate)
- Nebeker, 167 U.S. 202 (Supreme Court 1897) (revenue bills limited to taxes levied in strict sense; focus on main purpose)
- Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court 1990) (revenue-raising clause narrower; primary purpose governs Origination Clause)
- Millard, 202 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1906) (taxes used for broader purposes; revenue-raising not sole determinant)
- Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court 1950) (taxes may regulate activities; purpose not solely revenue-raising)
- Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (antiquated view later abrogated by NFIB; relevance to Origination Clause context)
- United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013) (cited as a circuit affirmation related to taxing power and mandate)