Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, American Life League, Inc., Institute on the Constitution, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Liberty Committee, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, and Policy Analysis Center:
Here, the amici’s brief argues three major points. First, that Virginia has standing to bring this action because (1) “the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act is not an act of nullification,” (2) the doctrine of parens patriae does not apply,” and (3) “the federal judicial power is not subject to prudential limitations.”
Second, that the individual mandate “cannot be justified as a constitutional exercise” of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause because: (1) the individual mandate is “morally-based, not commerce-based”; (2) the PPACA “is not a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce”; and (3) “as a ‘tax,’ the individual mandate confirms that [the] PPACA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Power.”
Finally, that the PPACA “constitutes [a] federal take-over of health and medicine in violation of the power of states and of the people secured by the Tenth Amendment,” because (1) it “intrudes on states regulation of the practice of medicine,” and (2) “suppresses individual healthcare choice.”
Former Attorneys General:
The former Attorneys General’s brief argues the following. First, it argues that “the individual mandate is an unprecedented subsidy for insurance providers, compelling commerce by private individuals not engaged in any form of commercial activity.”
Second, it argues that “the mandate does not regulate interstate commerce, or ‘economic activity’ that has a ‘substantial effect’ on interstate commerce” because (1) “the mandate does not regulate commerce,” and (2) the mandate cannot be justified as regulating economic activities that in the aggregate ‘substantially affect’ interstate commerce.”
Third, it argues that “the mandate is neither ‘necessary’ nor ‘proper’ for carrying into execution Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce” because: (1) “the mandate is not ‘necessary’ to ‘carry[]into execution’ Congress’s regulation of interstate commerce, but instead attempts to counteract the effects of executed regulations”; and (1) “forcing private parties to enter into disadvantageous contracts to subsidize a private industry is not a ‘proper’ means of executing a regulation of interstate commerce.”
Finally, it argues that “the government’s attempts to defend a hypothetical law cannot save the mandate.”
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence:
The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence argues the following to support its position that the PPACA is unconstitutional. First, the Center argues that “the doctrine that the federal government is one of only limited, enumerated powers is a bedrock principle of constitutional law.” Second, it argues that “the Commerce Clause was not meant to be a source of expansive federal intrusion into the daily lives of citizens.” Lastly, the Center argues that “even under the expanded view of the Commerce Clause taken in this court’s modern-era precedents, the PPACA exceeds the outer limits of the power afforded to Congress.”
The American Civil Rights Union:
The American Civil Rights Union’s brief contains five major arguments. First, that “the individual mandate regulates individuals not participating in interstate commerce for health insurance.” Second, that “the individual compels individuals to purchase health insurance sold only within completely intrastate markets by law, and does not involve regulations of interstate commerce for this reason as well.” Third, that “the individual mandate cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause.” Fourth, that “Congress can achieve all the social goals means to be addressed through the individual mandate through alternative means that are fully constitutional.” Finally, that because “the individual mandate cannot be severed,” the “whole PPACA must be found unconstitutional.”
Physician Hospitals of America:
The Physician Hospitals of America’s brief argues the following. First, that “in the absence of a severability provision, there is no presumption of severability.” Second, that “the only viable approach is to strike the whole Act,” because (1) “striking more than just § 1501 but not the whole statute is neither legally permissible nor even feasible,” (2) “Section 1501 is not severable from the entire remaining statute,” and (3) “the only constitutionally proper and workable approach is for the court to strike down PPACA in its entirety.”
