Chamber of Commerce:
The Chamber makes essentially the same two arguments in its brief in support of neither party as it did in its Fourth Circuit brief from last week. First, it argues that “if the minimum coverage mandate is held to exceed Congress’s constitutional powers, health insurance reforms in the PPACA should also be invalidated as non-severable from the mandate.” In support, the Chamber writes that “a proper approach to severability compels the conclusion that the PPACA’s guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions are non-severable from the individual mandate,” and that “health insurance reforms beyond the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions are similarly intertwined with the individual mandate for severability purposes.” Among these provisions are the PPACA’s risk-adjustment provision, bar on annual limits for benefits, and its medical loss ratio provision.
Second, the Chamber argues that “if this court affirms the invalidation of the individual mandate but does not invalidate the entire Act, it should remand to the district court to conduct a proper severability analysis in the first instance.”
The American Hospital Association, et al.:
Here, amici make the following arguments in support of the United States. First, amici argue that “the claim that uninsured individuals are ‘inactive’ is legally irrelevant.”
Second, they argue that “the claim that uninsured individuals are ‘inactive’ is factually incorrect.” In support of this, amici write that “because the uninsured are virtually certain to accrue health care costs, the decision to purchase or decline insurance is ‘economic activity.’” Amici write that “care provided to the uninsured costs billions per year, and everyone in the nation helps pay the bill.” Furthermore, they argue that (1) “attempts to analogize this case to Lopez fail,” (2) “characterizing the behavior of the uninsured as ‘inactivity misperceives the court’s task,” and (3) “the district court’s slippery-slope hypotheticals are inapposite.”
Third, amici argue that “Appellee’s Medicaid arguments should be rejected,” because (1) “Appellee’s coercion argument is wrong on the law and the facts,” and (2) “Plaintiff’s argument has dangerous ramifications that could prove devastating for hospitals and their patients.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics, et al.:
Here, amici argue that the Act “does not alter Medicaid’s structure or purpose.” Thus, they conclude that “Plaintiffs’ coercion and commandeering claims find no support in the history and structure of the Medicaid Act, as originally enacted or as Congress and the States have changed it over time.”
Law professors Barry Friedman, Matthew Adler, et al.:
Here, amici make three arguments in support of the United States. First, amici argue that “the Commerce Clause was designed and has been understood to empower Congress to address problems requiring national solutions.” They write that “the Commerce Clause was designed to afford Congress broad power over national economic problems,” and argue that the “longstanding practice and precedent confirm Congress’s broad regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause.”
Second, amici argue that “the Act falls within the historical understanding of Congress’s Commerce Power,” because (1) “the Act directly regulates interstate commerce,” and (2) “the minimum-coverage provision falls within Congress’s Commerce Power.”
Third, amici argue that “the minimum-coverage requirement is necessary and proper to effectuate Congress’s regulation of health insurance.” In support, amici write that “the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to choose means that are rationally related to the implementation of its legitimately exercised powers,” and “the minimum-coverage provision requirement comfortably falls within Congress’s Necessary-and-Proper Authority.”
Professors of Federal Jurisdiction:
The Professors of Federal Jurisdiction make the following arguments in support of the United States. First, that “the rule that states lack standing to sue the federal government as parens patriae reflects fundamental principles of constitutional law.” Second, that “state law cannot create standing merely by purporting to exempt state citizens from federal law.” Finally, that “the district court’s holding that Idaho and Utah have standing would have grave implications for the justiciability doctrine.”
