Four amicus certiorari briefs filed in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama

The Supreme Court's electronic docket now indicates that four amicus curiae briefs have been filed in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (No. 11-117), though that number is likely to grow. Here are the parties that have filed thus far:

* The HR Policy Association (brief available here).

* The Pacific Legal Foundation (brief available here).

* The Mountain States Legal Foundation (brief not yet available).

* Mortimer Caplin and Sheldon Cohen (brief not yet available).

Interestingly, the Pacific Legal Foundation argues that the Court should grant certiorari but that it should wait until Florida v. HHS also arrives at the Court and consolidate the two cases.

Here is s summary of the HR Policy Association's argument, clipped straight from page 3:

Conflicting decisions by the federal judiciary regarding the constitutionality of the PPACA—particularly with respect to the individual mandate provision—has created significant legal uncertainty regarding the future of health care reform in Amer-ica. Indeed, these conflicts have left individuals, states, and particularly employers, which are devot-ing substantial time and resources to the implemen-tation of the numerous requirements under the Act, mired in uncertainty. Prompt resolution of the Act’s constitutionality by this Court, one way or another, will provide greater certainty and predictability in the health care reform process, which is needed for employers to move forward. Therefore, the Court should grant the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

UPDATE: With many thanks to Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, their amicus cert brief is now available here. The following paragraph summarizes their argument (quoting from p.5):

The Sixth Circuit’s decision is in direct conflict with decisions of this Court that reinforce the doctrine of enumerated powers. More importantly, it is in direct conflict with the clear intent of the Founders, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, and with the text of Article I and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with an Eleventh Circuit decision that struck down the Individual Mandate because the government’s arguments in support of the Mandate had no limiting principles and, therefore, undermined the doctrine of enumerated powers. As a result, the Petition should be granted.