In the Supreme Court case NFIB v. Sebelius, Roberts establishes his opinion on the role of the court, taking in consideration John Marshall’s opinion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison; judicial review is present in both cases but in different ways. Roberts was aware that allowing Congress the power to control the purchase of healthcare services under the Commerce Clause was overstepping its boundaries, and so his opinion stating that Congress cannot control inactivity created precedential value.
When Chief Justice Marshall first established the important principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, his goal was to give the judicial branch a safeguard by expanding the Court’s power and legitimizing the weakest branch of…show more content… Also, whether there is a “reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends” (Ginsburg, pg 16). In this case, the Chief Justice acknowledged that Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce is broad but he also stated that it had never attempted to use this power to require individuals to buy a product. He notes that the language of the Clause suggests that there has to be some activity to regulate. What makes this case different is that Roberts says that is not within Congress’s power to regulate nonexistent activity. This case has precedential value because there is a defined limit on Congress’s power, compared to the vagueness of the substantial effects and the rational basis test.
This case now sets the standard for how similar cases should be handled in the future. Roberts was aware that regulating individuals based on what they do not do, would expand the reach of the Commerce Clause past its limits, and change the relationship between the citizen and the federal government. The Court’s decision creates a new restriction on Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause—that Congress can only regulate commercial activity, not compel an individual to engage in it—which reinforces the idea that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority has boundaries.
Works Cited
Lunder, Erika K., and Jennifer Staman. "NFIB v. Sebelius:
