The Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law in 2010, has been one of the most contested pieces of federal legislation in modern American history. Since its enactment, the Supreme Court has weighed in on its constitutionality in several landmark cases. A central thread running through these decisions is the interpretive philosophy of originalism—the idea that the Constitution should be understood as it was originally drafted and ratified. This approach has profoundly shaped how justices analyze the text of the ACA and its interaction with constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Power, and the Spending Clause. Understanding originalism is therefore essential to grasping the trajectory of healthcare law in the United States and the evolving role of the judiciary in reviewing federal legislation.

Originalism is not a monolithic doctrine. Within the Supreme Court, it manifests in different variants—most prominently original intent (what the Framers themselves had in mind) and original public meaning (how a reasonable person at the time would have understood the constitutional text). The distinction matters because it shapes the evidence justices rely on: debates from the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, contemporaneous dictionaries, and early state practices. Over the past three decades, originalism has moved from a fringe academic theory to a dominant framework, particularly among conservative justices. Its influence on ACA rulings offers a vivid case study of how a judicial philosophy translates into real-world consequences for healthcare access, federalism, and individual liberty.

What Is Originalism and Why Does It Matter?

At its core, originalism holds that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at the time of ratification. Any change to that meaning must come through the amendment process, not judicial reinterpretation. Proponents argue that originalism constrains judges, preventing them from imposing their own policy preferences and preserving democratic accountability. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading originalist, famously wrote: "The Constitution is not a living document; it is a dead, dead, dead document." Critics, however, contend that originalism can produce outcomes that diverge sharply from contemporary values and that the historical record is often ambiguous or contested. Despite the debate, originalism has become a cornerstone of the conservative legal movement and a recurring theme in the Court’s most contentious cases.

Originalism’s rise to prominence on the Court coincided with the ACA litigation. Justice Scalia’s appointment in 1986 and the later confirmations of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—all of whom identify with some form of originalism—have shifted the interpretive center of gravity. In ACA cases, this has meant rigorous textual analysis, skepticism of expansive readings of federal power, and a focus on the original meaning of terms like "commerce," "tax," and "necessary and proper." The following sections examine how originalist reasoning played out in three pivotal Supreme Court challenges to the ACA.

Originalism in Action: The Major ACA Cases

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius (2012)

The first major test of the ACA’s constitutionality centered on the individual mandate—the requirement that most Americans maintain health insurance or pay a penalty. The government defended the mandate under the Commerce Clause, arguing that the decision to forgo insurance substantially affects interstate commerce. A five-justice majority, however, rejected that argument. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, held that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to compel individuals to engage in commerce; it only regulates existing commercial activity. This reasoning was explicitly rooted in originalist principles: the original understanding of "commerce" as "intercourse" or "trade" did not include inactivity. Roberts cited the Framers’ fear of a general federal police power, drawing on historical sources such as the Court’s own opinion to argue that upholding the mandate under the Commerce Clause would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance between state and federal authority.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, delivered a separate dissent that took an even stricter originalist stance. They argued that the mandate was not a tax (another justification offered by the government) because the word “penalty” in the text of the ACA suggested a punitive intent rather than a revenue-raising measure. This textualist-originalist double attack forced the government to rely on the Taxing Power as a backup. Ultimately, Chief Justice Roberts upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing authority, a conclusion that some originalists criticized as inconsistent with the original meaning of a “direct tax.” The NFIB decision illustrates the internal tensions within originalism: while the Commerce Clause analysis drew heavily on original meaning, the taxing power holding was defended on broader structural grounds.

King v. Burwell (2015)

In King v. Burwell, the Court considered whether the ACA authorized federal subsidies for health insurance purchased through federally established exchanges (as opposed to state-run exchanges). The text of the statute said subsidies were available for plans purchased “through an Exchange established by the State.” The plaintiffs argued that the plain meaning of those words prohibited subsidies on federal exchanges. The government contended that reading the phrase in context—together with the overall structure and purpose of the ACA—made the subsidies available everywhere.

Chief Justice Roberts again wrote for the majority, but his opinion this time rejected a strict textualist-originalist approach in favor of a more holistic reading. He acknowledged the textual ambiguity but concluded that the phrase “established by the State” had to be interpreted in light of the ACA’s broader goals. To find otherwise, he wrote, would “destabilize the individual health insurance market” and produce an absurd result: the very states that failed to set up their own exchanges would lose the subsidies that made coverage affordable. The dissenters—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—adhered to originalist canons, insisting that if the text is clear, the Court’s job is to apply it as written, regardless of consequences. Justice Scalia’s dissent famously declared that “we should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” accusing the majority of rewriting the statute. The case reveals a fault line: originalism often aligns with textualism, but in King v. Burwell, the majority prioritized structural coherence over the narrowest reading of a single phrase, a decision that originalist critics decried as judicial activism.

California v. Texas (2021)

The most recent major ACA challenge, California v. Texas, returned to the constitutionality of the individual mandate—but in a new posture. In 2017, Congress zeroed out the penalty for failing to maintain insurance, setting it to $0. The plaintiffs argued that without a tax (the penalty had been upheld as a tax), the mandate could no longer be justified under the Taxing Power and therefore the entire ACA must fall. The Court, in a 7–2 decision, dismissed the case for lack of standing, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown a concrete injury. But several justices wrote separately about the merits, and originalist reasoning appeared in both the majority and concurrences.

Justice Thomas, concurring only in the judgment, argued that the individual mandate, even without a penalty, likely exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers. He traced the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing Power, concluding that compelling individuals to purchase a product "was never understood as a power the Constitution gave to Congress." He also criticized the majority for failing to reach the merits, suggesting that originalism demands clarity even when a question is politically charged. Justice Alito, in a dissent joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further, arguing that the mandate remained an unconstitutional command regardless of the penalty amount. Their analysis relied heavily on the original public meaning of "regulate" and "tax." The case demonstrated that originalist justices are willing to strike down an act of Congress even when the practical effect of the mandate is zero, because the principle of limited government is paramount under originalist theory.

How Originalism Has Shaped the Court’s ACA Jurisprudence

The three cases reveal a pattern: originalist justices consistently scrutinize federal power through the lens of historical meaning, often demanding textual precision and resisting inferences from broad structural purposes. In NFIB, originalism provided the intellectual foundation for limiting the Commerce Clause. In King v. Burwell, originalism (or its textualist cousin) informed a sharp dissent that would have gutted the ACA’s subsidy system. In California v. Texas, originalism propelled a concurrence and dissent that would have invalidated the mandate even after its enforcement was gone. Yet in each case, the originalist agenda did not fully prevail—Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative who sometimes embraces originalism, chose a different path in King to preserve the ACA’s core.

This tension highlights a broader debate within originalist theory itself. Some originalists, such as Justice Scalia and Justice Gorsuch, embrace textualism as a companion: the statute’s plain meaning governs, and the Court need not inquire into legislative intent. Others, such as Justice Thomas and Judge Bork (a leading originalist thinker), emphasize the original meaning of constitutional provisions even when it leads to outcomes that contradict contemporary policy. The ACA cases show that originalism does not produce deterministic results; rather, it supplies a set of interpretive commitments that different justices can apply to reach different conclusions about federalism, taxing power, and the scope of judicial review.

Critiques and Counterarguments

Originalism has its share of critics on and off the bench. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor often advocate a living constitutionalism that adapts constitutional principles to evolving societal standards. In ACA litigation, they argued that the Commerce Clause should be read flexibly to allow Congress to address national problems like healthcare—problems the Framers could not have anticipated. Justice Kagan, in a concurrence in King v. Burwell, emphasized that the ACA was a “complex statute” that required the Court to consider purpose and context, not just isolated words. Critics also point out that originalism’s reliance on historical evidence can be selective; originalist justices often emphasize the Federalist Papers and early practice but ignore countervailing evidence. For example, the original meaning of “commerce” may have included incidental regulation of inactivity in certain contexts, such as the requirement to buy goods from the Crown.

Moreover, the practical consequences of originalist rulings in healthcare are non-trivial. A strict originalist approach that invalidates subsidies on federally run exchanges could cause millions to lose coverage. Similarly, striking down the individual mandate entirely could destabilize insurance markets, raising premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Originalists respond that consequences are not relevant to constitutional interpretation—the text controls. But as Justice Robert H. Jackson once noted, the Constitution is “intended to endure for ages to come” and must be applied to new circumstances. The ongoing debate over originalism and the ACA underscores the deeper philosophical divide about whether courts should sacrifice efficiency or policy goals to preserve what they see as fidelity to the Constitution’s original design.

Implications for Future Rulings on Healthcare and Beyond

With the current Court comprising six justices who have expressed sympathy for originalism, the philosophy will continue to shape future challenges to the ACA—and to broader healthcare legislation. Potential issues include Medicaid expansion, prescription drug pricing regulations, and federal vaccine mandates. In NFIB, the Court already limited the Spending Clause by prohibiting the federal government from threatening states with the loss of existing Medicaid funding to compel expansion. That holding drew on historical understandings of federal-state relations. Similarly, any future law that regulates individual health choices—such as a public option or Medicare for All—will be tested against originalist principles. For instance, if Congress requires individuals to enroll in a government-run plan, the Court might analyze whether that compulsion “directly regulates commerce in the original sense” or whether it exceeds enumerated powers.

Originalism also has implications for administrative law and deference to agencies. In recent decisions like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Court overruled Chevron deference, holding that courts must exercise their independent judgment in interpreting statutes—a victory for textualist and originalist approaches. This shift means that when the Department of Health and Human Services interprets ambiguous ACA provisions, courts will no longer defer; they will apply their own reading, likely guided by original public meaning of the statutory text. Health policy experts predict more litigation over ACA rules, such as those requiring contraceptive coverage or anti-discrimination protections, as parties challenge agency interpretations on originalist grounds.

Beyond healthcare, originalism’s dominance affects everything from gun rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen) to environmental law, campaign finance, and abortion. The ACA cases serve as a microcosm: they illustrate how originalist reasoning both constrains judges (by limiting their ability to read expansive powers into the Constitution) and empowers them (by justifying decisions that overturn democratically enacted laws). The long-term impact on American law will depend on whether the Court’s originalist majority remains cohesive or fractures along the fault lines exposed in King v. Burwell and California v. Texas.

Conclusion

The Affordable Care Act has been a crucible for originalist jurisprudence. Over three major cases spanning a decade, the Supreme Court has grappled with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Power, the Spending Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Originalism has provided a powerful intellectual framework for challenging the ACA’s constitutionality, but it has not yielded uniform results. The interplay of textualism, original public meaning, and judicial restraint has produced decisions that both narrowed and preserved the law. As the Court continues to confront novel healthcare questions, the influence of originalism will remain central—offering a method that promises stability and fidelity to constitutional design, even as it generates sharp disagreement about what that design requires. Ultimately, the ACA saga demonstrates that judicial philosophy is not an abstract academic exercise; it has profound consequences for the lives of millions of Americans who rely on the nation’s healthcare system.

Further Reading: