Overruled (30 page)

On July 1, several days after the health care decision was released, Jan Crawford of CBS News, a veteran legal journalist and author of a respected book on the Supreme Court, reported that something had indeed been going on behind closed courtroom doors at that time. “Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law,” she reported, “but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the
law, according to sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.” Why did Roberts change his vote? Crawford had no definitive answer from her sources. But she did note that “as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.”
71

For his part, Rosen has consistently denied participating in any sort of lobbying campaign, concerted or otherwise. “The idea that I was trying to ‘intimidate' or ‘bend' the Chief Justice came as a surprise to me,” he wrote. “The justices have already voted in the health care case and are hardly influenced, in any event, by legal punditry.”
72

“Turning First to the Commerce Clause”

“I have the announcement in case number 11–393,
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
and the related cases,”
73
Chief Justice Roberts announced on the morning of June 28, 2012, the last day of the Court's 2011–2012 term. After three months of waiting, the health care decision had finally arrived.

“In these cases,” Roberts began, the packed courtroom fixed on his every word, “we consider claims that Congress lacked constitutional power to enact two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.” While most Americans may consider “affirmative restrictions such as contained in the Bill of Rights” to be the foremost “limits on government power,” Roberts said, those restrictions only “come into play” when “the government possesses authority to act in the first place. And in our federal system, the national government possesses only those limited powers the Constitution assigns.”

That opening description sounded very promising to the legal challengers. What came next sounded even better. “The question is whether Congress has the constitutional power to enact the individual mandate,” Roberts explained. According to the federal government, it
does have such power. “Turning first to the Commerce Clause,” Roberts said, it turns out that Congress does not. “Congress has never before attempted to use the commerce power to order individuals not engaged in commerce to buy an unwanted product,” he observed. “And nothing in the text of the Constitution suggests it can.”

It was the very argument championed by Randy Barnett and his libertarian and conservative allies over the previous two years. Congress may regulate economic activity, they said, but Congress may not regulate inactivity. Now the chief justice of the United States was making the same point. “The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions,” Roberts declared. In the 2010
Citizens United
case, Roberts had struck down an act of Congress for exceeding the limits of the Constitution. To the horror of the Obama administration and its allies, he now appeared to be engaged in a repeat performance. But the show was not over yet. In fact, the final act had just begun.

“It Is Not Our Job”

“That brings us to the Government's second argument,” Roberts continued, “that the mandate may be upheld under Congress' power to lay and collect taxes.” According to this view, he explained, the mandate is not actually a command to purchase health insurance, but is instead only a tax levied on those who do not have health insurance. “Under that theory, the mandate makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income,” Roberts said. Then came the kicker. “Under our precedent, if there are two possible interpretations of a statute and one of those interpretations violates the Constitution, the courts should adopt the interpretation that allows the statute to be upheld.”

Roberts had just telegraphed the outcome of the case. In his fifty-nine-page opinion, he would spell out the reasoning in detail. “The
most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance,” the chief justice wrote. “But for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government's alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.”
74

Among that precedent was a 1927 opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, which Roberts proceeded to quote. “As between two possible interpretations of a statute,” Holmes wrote, “by one of which it would be unconstitutional and the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.”
75
Following Holmes's instructions, Roberts did his “duty” and saved the Affordable Care Act. “The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution,” Roberts wrote. “Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can so be read.”
76
Obamacare had survived.

Roberts would spend just over twenty minutes that morning summarizing his opinion from the bench, but he saved perhaps the most important and revealing statement of all until the very last minute. And once again, the chief justice of the United States turned to the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for support. Today's ruling, Roberts declared, has nothing to do with the Court's personal views as to the wisdom or folly of the health care law. “That judgment is for the people acting through their representatives,” he said. Then, his voice rising in emphasis, the chief justice reached his conclusion. “It is not our job,” Roberts declared, reading directly from his opinion, “to save the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
77

Nearly a century earlier, Justice Holmes had first given expression to that very sentiment. “If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them,” Holmes wrote about his role as a judge. “It's my job.”
78

Epilogue

No Peace

In late April 2012, barely a month after the Supreme Court finished hearing oral arguments in the health care case, Yale Law School hosted a weekend conference featuring a group of distinguished legal scholars debating various forms of constitutional interpretation. Among the participants was Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and a respected legal conservative. McConnell, it turned out, was none too thrilled about the prospects of a conservative Supreme Court striking down the Affordable Care Act. In fact, he compared the possibility to a feat of right-wing judicial activism.

“Democracy still seems to me to be a worthy project,” McConnell told the assembled legal experts. “I haven't quite given up on it.” But he also admitted to seeing little cause for optimism. The way things are going now, he said, “everything is thrown into the courts,” ultimately leaving all political decisions in the hands of unelected judges. “It's quite evident,” McConnell concluded, “that, on the right side of the legal world, the ascendancy is people like Randy Barnett who want a more muscular judiciary.”
1

Was he right to worry? Just two months later, after all, Chief Justice John Roberts did what McConnell wanted and left the fate of health care reform in the hands of the voters and their elected representatives. It was the biggest Supreme Court case in decades, and the outcome ultimately hinged on the deferential philosophy of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Perhaps the fear of the libertarian ascendancy was much ado about nothing.

But then again, perhaps McConnell was right to worry.
District of Columbia v. Heller,
the landmark 2008 ruling that recognized the Second Amendment as a core individual right, was certainly a libertarian win premised on the strenuous flexing of judicial muscle. So was the 2010 gun rights victory in
McDonald v. Chicago,
which applied the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms against the states. Going forward, all firearm regulations must now contend with these forceful Supreme Court precedents. Like it or not, the Supreme Court has entered the political thicket of gun control.

Nor are the libertarian lawyers at the Institute for Justice showing any signs of fatigue in their long campaign to spark “judicial action”
2
on behalf of property rights and economic liberty. In fact, they're building momentum. In March 2013, for example, IJ scored another bull's-eye against the regulatory state when its lawyers convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to strike down a Louisiana law that forbade a group of Benedictine monks from selling handmade wooden caskets without a license. “The great deference due state economic regulation does not demand judicial blindness,” the Fifth Circuit declared, “nor does it require courts to accept nonsensical explanations for regulations.”
3
With every such win, the Institute for Justice chips away further at the Progressive-era edifice upholding judicial deference and the rational-basis test.

As for the outcome of the 2012 health care case, the followers of Justice Holmes should not be too quick to drop their guards. Although
it's true that Roberts saved the health care law, he also accepted the Commerce Clause arguments put forward by Barnett and the other legal challengers, thereby joining with the four dissenters—Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito—to recognize the first new limits on congressional power since the stalled “federalism revolution” of
United States v. Lopez,
which invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and
United States v. Morrison,
which struck down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act. It remains to be seen how this aspect of the health care ruling will play out in future cases.

Finally, while Randy Barnett and his libertarian and conservative allies might have failed to nullify the Affordable Care Act, they only missed by a single vote. The next major test of government power may well produce a very different result. The long war for control of the Supreme Court rages on.

Acknowledgments

Warm thanks to my agent, Don Fehr, and to my editor, Karen Wolny, whose encouragement and wise counsel made this book possible.

Small portions of this work first appeared, in different form, in the pages of
Reason
magazine and online at Reason.com. I'm grateful to the editors who brought those pieces to life, particularly Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Jesse Walker, and Matt Welch. Thanks also to my other
Reason
colleagues, including Mike Alissi, Ronald Bailey, Meredith Bragg, Barb Burch, Brian Doherty, Jim Epstein, Matthew Feeney, Anthony Fisher, Jon Graff, Ed Krayewski, Chris Mitchell, Julian Morris, David Nott, Melissa Palmer, Scott Shackford, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, Josh Swain, Mary Toledo, and J.D. Tuccille. And one more round of thanks to Nick for giving me my first real job in journalism.

As I look back now, I realize this book's origins are to be found in the classroom of Professor Herbert Sloan of the Barnard College History Department at Columbia University. His wonderful course “The Constitution in Historical Perspective” opened my eyes to some 200 years of landmark Supreme Court decisions. I remain in his debt.

My family is and always has been a deep source of friendship and support, and I lack the words to adequately express my love and
gratitude to Mom, Amy, Alex, and Dan. Thanks also to my new family: Trish, Rick, Ellen, Charlotte, Alexander, Keith, Sara, Bill, Tom, and Maria. And very special thanks to my late, much beloved cat Orpheus, who always kept me company while I worked. I miss you.

Finally, to Allison, my partner in crime. None of this would be possible without you at my side.

Select Bibliography

Arkes, Hadley.
The Return of George Sutherland: Restoring a Jurisprudence of Natural Rights.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Barnett, Randy E. “Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution.”
National Review
Online, July 10, 2003.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207453/kennedys-libertarian-revolution/randy-barnett
.

Barnett, Randy E.
Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Bean, Jonathan, ed.
Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009.

Beito, David T., and Linda Royster Beito. “Gold Democrats and the Decline of Classical Liberalism, 1896–1900.”
The Independent Review,
vol. 4, no. 4, Spring 2000.

Benedict, Jeff.
Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage.
New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009.

Bernstein, David E. “Philip Sober Controlling Philip Drunk:
Buchanan v. Warley
in Historical Perspective.”
Vanderbilt Law Review
51, May 1998.

Bernstein, David E.
Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights from Progressive Reform.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Bickel, Alexander M.
The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics.
2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Bickel, Alexander M., and Benno C. Schmidt Jr.
History of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Vol. 9,
The Judiciary and Responsible Government, 1910–1921.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Bishop, Joseph Bucklin, ed.
Theodore Roosevelt and His Time: Shown in His Own Letters.
Vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner's Son's, 1920.

Black, Hugo Lafayette.
A Constitutional Faith.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968.

Blackman, Josh.
Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.
New York: Public Affairs, 2013.

Bolick, Clint.
Changing Course: Civil Rights at the Crossroads.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1988.

Bolick, Clint.
Unfinished Business: A Civil Rights Strategy for America's Third Century.
San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990.

Bork, Robert H. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.”
Indiana Law Journal
47, 1971.

Bork, Robert H.
The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law.
New York: Touchstone, 1991.

Calhoun, John C.
John C. Calhoun: Selected Speeches and Writings.
Edited by H. Lee Cheek Jr. New York: Regnery, 2003.

Coke, Sir Edward.
The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke.
2 vols. Edited by Steve Sheppard. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003.

Coyle, Marcia.
The Roberts Court: The Struggle for the Constitution.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013.

Crawford, Jan. “Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law.” CBS News, July 2, 2012.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
.

Croly, Herbert.
Progressive Democracy.
New York: Macmillan, 1914.

Curtis, Michael Kent.
No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights.
Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1986.

Davidson, Alan, ed.
The Oxford Companion to Food.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Doherty, Brian.
Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.
New York: Public Affairs, 2007.

Douglass, Frederick.
Frederick Douglass:
Selected Speeches and Writings,
Edited by Philip S. Foner. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.

Douglass, Frederick.
My Bondage and My Freedom.
New York: Penguin Books, 2003. First published in 1855 by Miller, Orton & Mulligan.

Douglass, Frederick.
Writings.
New York: Library of America, 1994.

DuBois, W. E. B.
Black Reconstruction.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935.

Epstein, Richard A. “Judicial Review: Reckoning on Two Kinds of Error.”
Cato Journal,
vol. 4, no. 3, Winter 1985.

Epstein, Richard A.
Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Epstein, Richard A. “The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power.”
Virginia Law Review
73, 1987.

Feldman, Noah.
Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices.
New York: Twelve, 2010.

Field, Stephen J.
Personal Reminiscences of Early Days in California, with Other Sketches.
Birmingham, Ala.: Legal Classics Library, 1989. First published privately in 1893.

Finkelman, Paul. “John Bingham and the Background to the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Akron Law Review
36, 2002–2003.

Fitzhugh, George.
Sociology for the South, or The Failure of Free Society.
London: Forgotten Books, 2012. First published in 1854 by A. Morris.

Flynn, John T.
Country Squire in the White House.
New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1940.

Foner, Eric.
Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877.
Francis Parkman Prize Edition. New York: History Book Club, 2005.

Foote, Shelby.
The Civil War: A Narrative, Fort Sumter to Perryville.
New York: Random House, 1958.

Forbath, William E. “The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and Law in the Gilded Age.”
Wisconsin Law Review,
1985.

Frankfurter, Felix, ed.
Mr. Justice Holmes.
New York: Coward-McCann, 1931.

Frankfurter, Felix. “The Red Terror of Judicial Reform.”
The New Republic,
October 1, 1924.

Fried, Charles A.
Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution: A Firsthand Account.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

Genovese, Eugene.
The World the Slaveholders Made.
New York: Pantheon, 1969.

Greenburg, Jan Crawford.
Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court.
New York: Penguin Books, 2007.

Gunther, Gerald.
Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.

Hall, Kermit L., ed.
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.
2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay.
The Federalist Papers.
Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New York: Mentor, 1961.

Hand, Learned.
The Bill of Rights.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Hixson, William B., Jr.
Moorfield Storey and the Abolitionist Tradition.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. “The Gas-Stoker's Strike.”
American Law Review
7, 1873.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr.
Touched with Fire: Civil War Letters and Diary of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Edited by Mark De Wolfe Howe. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr., and Felix Frankfurter.
Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence, 1912–1934.
Edited by Robert M. Mennel and Christine L. Compston. Hanover: University of New Hampshire Press, 1996.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr., and Harold Laski.
Holmes-Laski Letters: The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Harold J. Laski, 1916–1935.
2 vols. Edited by Mark De Wolfe Howe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Horwitz, Tony.
Midnight Rising: John Brown and the Raid that Sparked the Civil War.
New York: Henry Holt, 2011.

Jefferson, Thomas.
Writings.
New York: Library of America, 1984.

Johnson, Andrew.
The Papers of Andrew Johnson.
Vol. 10,
February-July 1866.
Edited by Paul H. Bergeron. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992.

Kennedy, David M.
Over Here: The First World War and American Society.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Ketcham, Ralph, ed.
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates.
New York: Mentor, 1986.

Knowles, Helen J.
The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony Kennedy on Liberty.
Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.

Labbe, Ronald M., and Jonathan Lurrie.
The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Abridged edition. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005.

Lee, Robert E.
The Wartime Papers of Robert E. Lee.
Edited by Clifford Dowdey and Louis H. Manarin. New York: Da Capo Press, 1987.

Leuchtenburg, William E.
The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Levinson, Sanford. “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”
Yale Law Journal
99, 1989.

Lincoln, Abraham.
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.
Vol. 5. Edited by Roy P. Basler. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953.

Lofgren, Charles.
The Plessy Case.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Macedo, Stephen.
The New Right v. The Constitution.
Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1986.

Madison, James.
Writings.
New York: Library of America, 1999.

McCloskey, Robert Green.
American Conservatism in the Age of Enterprise, 1865–1910.
New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1951.

McPherson, James.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Years.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Meese, Edwin M., III. “A Return to Constitutional Interpretation from Judicial Law-Making.”
New York Law School Law Review
40, 1996.

Menand, Louis.
The Metaphysical Club.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.

Mencken, H. L.
A Mencken Chrestomathy: His Own Selections of His Choicest Writings.
New York: Vintage Books, 1982.

Miller, John J.
A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America.
New York: Encounter Books, 2006.

Moley, Raymond.
The First New Deal.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966.

Moreno, Paul D.
Black Americans and Organized Labor: A New History.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006.

Moreno, Paul D.
The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal: The Twilight of Constitutionalism and the Triumph of Progressivism.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Morris, Edmund.
Colonel Roosevelt.
New York: Random House, 2010.

Pilon, Roger. “Constitutional Visions.”
Reason,
December 1990.

Pilon, Roger. “On the Foundations of Justice.”
The Intercollegiate Review,
Fall/Winter 1981.

Pilon, Roger. “Rethinking Judicial Restraint.”
Wall Street Journal,
February 1, 1991.

Roosevelt, Theodore. “Judges and Progress.”
The Outlook,
January 6, 1912.

Scalia, Antonin. “Economic Affairs As Human Affairs.”
Cato Journal,
vol. 4, no. 3, Winter 1985.

Scalia, Antonin.
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Schurz, Carl.
Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz.
Vol 1. Edited by Frederic Bancroft. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1913.

Schurz, Carl.
Speeches of Carl Schurz.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1865.

Siegan, Bernard H.
Economic Liberties and the Constitution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Smith, Adam.
An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
2 vols. Edited by R. S. Campbell and A. S. Skinner. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981.

Spencer, Herbert.
Social Statics: The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed.
New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1995. First published in 1851 by J. Chapman.

Storey, Moorfield.
Charles Sumner.
New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1900.

Storey, Moorfield, and Marcial P. Lichauco.
The Conquest of the Philippines by the United States, 1898–1925.
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1926.

Teles, Steven M.
The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Thayer, James Bradley.
The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.
Boston: Little, Brown, 1893.

Thomas, Clarence.
My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.
New York: Harper, 2007.

Tugwell, Rexford.
The Brains Trust.
New York: Viking Press, 1968.

Urofsky, Melvin I.
Louis D. Brandeis: A Life.
New York: Pantheon Books, 2009.

Urofsky, Melvin I., ed.
The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary.
New York: Taylor and Francis, 1994.

Wilkinson, J. Harvie, III. “Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law.”
Virginia Law Review
95, vol. 2, April 2009.

Williams, Walter E.
The State against Blacks.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.