In the case study of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, which clause was found to work?

In the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sibelius, the Taxing and Spending Clause was determined to be the operative authority supporting the constitutionality of the individual mandate within the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This clause allows Congress to levy taxes and provides the federal government with the power to spend on the general welfare of the United States, which includes the authority to impose a penalty tax on individuals who do not obtain health insurance.

The Supreme Court concluded that the mandate could not be justified under the Commerce Clause, as Congress cannot compel individuals to engage in commerce or purchase a product. However, the penalty for not obtaining insurance was considered a tax, which made it valid under the Taxing and Spending Clause. This distinction was crucial in explaining how the federal government could enact such a mandate without overstepping its constitutional bounds. The ruling highlighted the importance of the taxing power in legislative measures affecting health care and public welfare.