MR. HALEY
HONORS AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
NAME_______________________________
YOU BE THE JUSTICE
OBJECTIVES: The students will be able to:
1.) Research Supreme Court precedent
2.) Apply USSC precedent to the case involving the Affordable care Act
3.) Assess the constitutionality of the ACA under the principle of federalism
INSTRUCTIONS:
 First, go to the following site and review their analysis of the Justices who will
decide the constitutionality of the ACA
http://www.oyeztoday.org/healthcare/#details

Then back to the OYEZ home page and search OYEZ for the following cases and
review their reasoning.

Make an outline of theses case precedents in the format that follows. See the
demonstration of South Dakota v Dole.

Cases:
o Wickard v Filburn 1942
o South Dakota v Dole 1986 – Mr. Haley demonstrated for you.
o United States v Lopez 1994
o United States v Morrison 1999
o Gonzales v Raich 2004

Once the research is done, each student will assume the role of a US Supreme Court
Justice to render a decision on the constitutionality of the ACA. The studentJustices will write an Opinion laying out the reasoning behind their decision in this
case. The ultimate question to be decided is whether Congress has the power under
Article I Section 8, specifically the power to regulate interstate commerce, to enact
the minimum coverage (Individual Mandate) provision? The Opinion is to be 2 -3
pages long, double spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font. The Opinion is due by
April 10th in class.
CASE OUTLINE / BRIEF FORMAT
Case Name – South Dakota v Dole 1986
1. Brief
In 1984, Congress passed legislation compelling the Secretary of
Summary Transportation to withhold 5% of each state’s federal highway funds if the
of the
state did not adopt a drinking age minimum of 21 years. South Dakota
Facts
challenged this provision.
2. List the
Whether Congress exceeded its powers by passing legislation conditioning
Issues
the award of federal highway funds on the states’ adopting a minimum
Whether . . .
drinking age?
3. The
The Justices voted 7-2 in favor of Congress having this power.
USSC
Decision
- Which
side won?
4. The
The Majority held that Congress was acting indirectly to encourage
Reasonin uniformity in states’ drinking ages. The Court held that this action was
g of the
within the constitutional powers of Congress. Under Article I Section 8
Court –
Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes and to spend for the
Which
general welfare. The Court felt that the means of achieving the goal of a
test was
uniform drinking age was reasonable. The 21st Amendment did not
used or
prohibit Congress from acting indirectly and the 5% penalty (loss of
standard highway funding) was not unduly coercive. (Please note that, by extension,
created?
any attempt by Congress to regulate indirectly with a more severe penalty
would then possibly be unreasonable!)