Replies

I think that, with time, people are going to understand just HOW important this is.

It won't even take that long.

EPA just got handed a stop sign. Think about it; "inactivity" cannot be regulated.

The Sackett case comes to mind; EPA can't just come barging in and start issuing demands out of the blue. They can only regulate activity.

Once people start figuring this out, the litigation will fly.

“I think that, with time, people are going to understand just HOW important [the commerce clause part of Roberts’ opinion] this is.”

IMO, this decision will have little-to-no effect on commerce clause law.

* To begin with, Roberts’ reasoning on this issue is “dicta”. That is, it had no bearing on how the Court ruled. The entire section could have been left out and it would have made no difference in the outcome of the case. Dicta is not regarded among attorneys or judges as having any value as precedent. Thus, it is NOT “stare decisis”—rather its value is persuasive only. Thus, if someday, we get a conservative majority on the Court in the future, it will be followed as persuasive. If there is a left majority on the Court, it will not. That is pretty much where things stood before the decision.

* Most people have not noticed that the Court’s decision, written by Roberts, was a one-man show on this issue. That is, the four left-wing judges (who joined him in the opinion) expressly excepted their agreement with the commerce clause section. So not only is Robert’s decision dicta on the commerce clause, it is Roberts talking to himself.

People searching for a silver lining in Roberts’ opinion should be looking at the discussion of the Spending Power in the Medicaid section of the case. It is actually a holding (as opposed to dicta) and held a clear majority of the Court.