Amicus Brief of Oregon Et Al
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Research Projects and Empirical Data Litigation 1-1-2011 Florida v. HHS - Amicus Brief of Oregon et al. John Kroger Attorney General's Office ofh t e State of Oregon Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca Part of the Health Law Commons Automated Citation Kroger, John, "Florida v. HHS - Amicus Brief of Oregon et al." (2011). Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation. Paper 153. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca/153 This Amicus Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Projects and Empirical Data at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Case: 11-11021 Date Filed: 04/11/2011 Page: 1 of 46 Nos. 11-11021-HH & 11-11067-HH In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ___________________ STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through Bill McCollum, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al, Defendants-Appellants, ___________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida No. 10-cv-91 (Vinson, J.) ___________________ BRIEF OF THE STATES OF OREGON, CALIFORNIA, IOWA, DELAWARE, NEW YORK, MARYLAND, CONNECTICUT, HAWAII, AND VERMONT, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ___________________ JOHN R. KROGER KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of Oregon Attorney General of California MARY H. WILLIAMS J. MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ Solicitor General Chief Deputy Attorney General KEITH S. DUBANEVICH TRAVIS LEBLANC Chief of Staff and Special Counsel Special Assistant Attorney General 1162 Court Street NE 1300 I Street Salem, OR 97301-4096 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (503) 378-6002 Telephone: (916) 445-9555 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Oregon State of California i State of Florida,Case: 11-11021 et al., v. U.S. Date Dep’t Filed: of 04/11/2011 Health and Human Page: 2 Services, of 46 et al. Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 TOM MILLER ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of Iowa Attorney General of the State of New York MARK SCHANTZ 120 Broadway, 25 th Floor Solicitor General New York, NY 10271 1305 E. Walnut Street Telephone: (212) 416-8020 Des Moines, IA 50319 Telephone: (802) 828-3181 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of New York Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Iowa GEORGE JEPSEN JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III Attorney General of Connecticut Attorney General of Delaware 55 Elm Street 820 N. French Street Hartford, Ct 06106 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (860) 808-5270 Telephone: (302) 577-8400 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Connecticut State of Delaware DOUGLAS F. GANSLER DAVID M. LOUIE Attorney General of Maryland Attorney General of Hawaii WILLIAM F. BROCKMAN GIRARD D. LAU Deputy Solicitor General Solicitor General 200 St. Paul Place, 20 th Floor 425 Queen Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (415) 703-5830 Telephone: (808) 586-1500 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Maryland State of Hawaii WILLIAM H. SORRELL IRVIN B. NATHAN Attorney General of Vermont Acting Attorney General for the 109 State Street District of Columbia Montpelier, VT 05609 One Judiciary Square Telephone: (802) 828-3173 441 4 th Street, N.W. Suite 600 South Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Washington, D.C. 20001 State of Vermont Telephone: (202) 727-3400 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae District of Columbia ii Case: 11-11021 Date Filed: 04/11/2011 Page: 3 of 46 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT State of Florida, et al., v. United States Dep’t of Health and Human Services, et al. Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to 11 th Cir. R. 26.1-1, the undersigned counsel certifies that, in addition to the persons, firms, and associations identified in Appellants’ opening brief, the following persons, firms, and associations may have an interest in the outcome of this case. A. Amicus Curiae District of Columbia, by and through Acting Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan State of California, by and through Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General State of Connecticut, by and through George Jepsen, Attorney General State of Delaware, by and through Joseph R. Biden, III, Attorney General State of Hawaii, by and through David M. Louie, Attorney General State of New York, by and through Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General B. Counsel for Amicus Curiae Biden, III, Joseph R. Brockman, William F. Harris, Kamala D. Gansler, Douglas F. Jepsen, George i State of Florida,Case: 11-11021 et al., v. U.S. Date Dep’t Filed: of 04/11/2011 Health and Human Page: 4 Services, of 46 et al. Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 Lau, Girard D. Leblanc, Travis Louie, David M. Miller, Tom Nathan, Irvin B. Rodriquez, J. Matthew Schneiderman, Eric T. Sorrell, William H. Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. KROGER #077207 Attorney General MARY H. WILLIAMS #911241 Solicitor General /s/ Keith S. Dubanevich KEITH S. DUBANEVICH #975200 Chief of Staff and Special Counsel Attorney for Amicus Curiae State of Oregon ii Case: 11-11021 Date Filed: 04/11/2011 Page: 5 of 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERESTS OF THE AMICI ..................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES................................................................. 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 5 STATUTORY BACKGROUND................................................................. 8 ARGUMENT..............................................................................................10 I. Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to enact the ACA’s minimum coverage provision................................................10 A. In articulating Congress’s regulatory power, the Supreme Court has never distinguished between “activity” and “inactivity,” nor does that distinction provide a workable framework for analysis. ....................11 B. The minimum coverage provision is constitutional because Congress had a rational basis for concluding that choosing to forgo health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce................15 C. The minimum coverage provision is constitutional because it is an essential part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme. .......................20 II. Congress Also Has the Authority Under the Necessary and Proper Clause to Enact the ACA’s Minimum Coverage Provision. ..............23 A. The minimum coverage provision is a necessary means to a legitimate end. ..................................................................................23 B. The minimum coverage provision is also a “proper” exercise of congressional authority that does not encroach on state sovereignty. 25 III. The Minimum Coverage Provision is Severable from the Remainder of the Affordable Care Act................................................................30 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................34 i Case: 11-11021 Date Filed: 04/11/2011 Page: 6 of 46 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Cited Alaska Airlines v. Brock , 480 U.S. 678 (1987)................................................................................32 Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976)....................................................................................32 Champion v. Ames , 188 U.S. 321 (1903)................................................................................25 Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health , 497 U.S. 261 (1990)................................................................................13 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) ............................................................................32 Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)................................................ 11, 12, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24 Helvering v. Davis , 301 U.S. 619 (1937)................................................................................30 Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner , 2010 WL 4860299 (W.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2010).........................................14 McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) ...............................................................................25 Mead v. Holder , 2011 WL 61139, *18 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2011) ........................................14 Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama , 720 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ....................................................14 U.S. v. Maxwell , 446 F.3d 1210 (11 th Cir. 2006) ..........................................................15, 23 United States v. Comstock , 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) ......................................................................25, 27 ii Case: 11-11021 Date Filed: 04/11/2011 Page: 7 of 46 United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)....................................................... 11, 12, 15, 23, 24 United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598 (2000)....................................................................12, 23, 24 United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters , 322 U.S. 533 (1944)................................................................................21 Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111 (1942)..........................................................................12,