| dbo:abstract
|
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius war ein Gerichtsfall, der vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelt wurde. Das Urteil hatte große politische Tragweite, weil der Gerichtshof die umstrittene Gesundheitsreform von Präsident Barack Obama von 2010 in ihren Grundzügen als verfassungsmäßig erachtete. (de)
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5–4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power). A majority of the justices, including Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, although they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding. (en)
- 全国独立企业联盟诉西贝利厄斯案（National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius，567 U.S. ___ (2012)）是美国联邦最高法院的一个案例，该案的判决支持了患者保护与平价医疗法案的大部分条款。 2010年3月平价医疗法案经美国总统贝拉克·奥巴马签署后生效。此后，一些组织认为这一法案的许多条款违宪，故向联邦法院提出起诉。最终这些案件合并为一，名为“全国独立企业联盟诉西贝利厄斯案”。 2012年6月28日联邦最高法院以5:4作出判决，支持了平价医疗法案的主要内容。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨与四位自由派大法官支持这一意见，除罗伯茨外的三位保守派大法官以及中间派大法官安东尼·肯尼迪则持反对意见。法院意见由首席大法官罗伯茨撰写。 平价医疗法案的核心条款强制几乎所有美国公民购买医疗保险，否则需要缴纳罚款。针对这一条款，法院意见认为，政府提出的法案授权自宪法中州际商业条款等说法不合理。但同时法院意见认为罚款可以视作一种税收，因而符合国会对于征税的授权。 此外，法院还对法案的一个条款提出了异议。根据该条款，联邦政府要求各州扩大联邦医疗补助（Medicaid）的覆盖面，如果某一州拒绝配合，联邦政府将截留相应的拨款。法院认为联邦截留款项的行为是违宪的。 (zh)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 68288 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedatea
|
- 0001-03-26 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:arguedateb
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:concurrence/dissent
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-28 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
|
- Thomas (en)
- Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito (en)
|
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- The Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 's labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act.
The individual mandate provision of the ACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.
Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may withhold from states refusing to comply with the ACA's Medicaid expansion provision only the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the ACA.
Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. (en)
|
| dbp:italicTitle
| |
| dbp:joinconcurrence/dissent
|
- Sotomayor; Breyer, Kagan (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
|
| dbp:joinplurality
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- U.S. Const. art. I; 124 Stat. 119–1025 (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:opinion
| |
| dbp:oralarguments
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:plurality
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius war ein Gerichtsfall, der vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelt wurde. Das Urteil hatte große politische Tragweite, weil der Gerichtshof die umstrittene Gesundheitsreform von Präsident Barack Obama von 2010 in ihren Grundzügen als verfassungsmäßig erachtete. (de)
- 全国独立企业联盟诉西贝利厄斯案（National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius，567 U.S. ___ (2012)）是美国联邦最高法院的一个案例，该案的判决支持了患者保护与平价医疗法案的大部分条款。 2010年3月平价医疗法案经美国总统贝拉克·奥巴马签署后生效。此后，一些组织认为这一法案的许多条款违宪，故向联邦法院提出起诉。最终这些案件合并为一，名为“全国独立企业联盟诉西贝利厄斯案”。 2012年6月28日联邦最高法院以5:4作出判决，支持了平价医疗法案的主要内容。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨与四位自由派大法官支持这一意见，除罗伯茨外的三位保守派大法官以及中间派大法官安东尼·肯尼迪则持反对意见。法院意见由首席大法官罗伯茨撰写。 平价医疗法案的核心条款强制几乎所有美国公民购买医疗保险，否则需要缴纳罚款。针对这一条款，法院意见认为，政府提出的法案授权自宪法中州际商业条款等说法不合理。但同时法院意见认为罚款可以视作一种税收，因而符合国会对于征税的授权。 此外，法院还对法案的一个条款提出了异议。根据该条款，联邦政府要求各州扩大联邦医疗补助（Medicaid）的覆盖面，如果某一州拒绝配合，联邦政府将截留相应的拨款。法院认为联邦截留款项的行为是违宪的。 (zh)
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (en)
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (de)
- 全国独立企业联盟诉西贝利厄斯案 (zh)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v.Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is rdfs:seeAlso
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
