I hung more meaning on the Article III argument. Here, is arguing that the judicial branch (Article III of the Constitution) is overstepping its bounds by trampling the prerogatives of the “political” branches (the legislature and executive). This is a dangerous precedent, indeed, that threatens not only separation of powers, but the independence of the judiciary (by threatening backlash against it).

I lent less weight to the federalism argument because the statute at issue implicates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. And, there is Constitutional jurisprudence that imposes a burden on the state when it holds individuals captive (where they are not free to protect themselves or seek medical assistance).

The analysis then turns to the statute, where Scalia argues (rightly, it seems) that the majority went beyond the plain language of the statute.