Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Research Projects and Empirical Data Litigation 1-1-2011 Coons v. Geithner - U.S. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss United States Department of Health and Human Services Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca Part of the Health Law Commons Automated Citation United States Department of Health and Human Services, "Coons v. Geithner - U.S. Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss" (2011). Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation. Paper 290. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/aca/290 This Memorandum 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 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 41 1 TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General 2 IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN 3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General 4 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney, District of Arizona 5 JENNIFER RICKETTS 6 Director 7 SHEILA LIEBER Deputy Director 8 JOEL McELVAIN TAMRA T. MOORE 9 ETHAN P. DAVIS Attorneys 10 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 11 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20001 12 (202) 514-9242 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 16 Nick Coons; et al., ) 17 ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: CV-10-1714-PHX-GMS 18 ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION vs. 19 ) TO DISMISS ) Timothy Geithner; et al., 20 ) ) 21 Defendants ) 22 23 24 25 26 Case 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 2 of 41 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. iii 3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 4 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2 5 6 I. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 7 A. Plaintiff Coons has not suffered an injury in fact ......................................... 2 8 B. Plaintiff Novack also lacks standing ............................................................. 5 9 II. The minimum coverage provision is a proper exercise of Congress’s 10 constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce ........................................ 6 11 A. The minimum coverage provision regulates a class of economic 12 activities that substantially affect interstate commerce ................................. 6 13 1. The minimum coverage provision regulates the practice of obtaining health care without insurance, a practice that shifts 14 costs to other participants in the health care market .......................... 6 15 B. The minimum coverage provision is essential to the Act’s 16 guaranteed-issue and community-rating insurance reforms ......................... 9 17 C. The minimum coverage provision is a necessary and proper means of regulating interstate commerce ............................................................... 12 18 19 1. Congress need not condition its regulation on a specific market transaction ........................................................................................ 12 20 2. Congress may regulate participants in the health care market, 21 even if they do not currently maintain insurance coverage ............. 14 22 3. The minimum coverage provision does not represent a claim of a 23 limitless national “police power” ..................................................... 16 24 III. The minimum coverage provision is also independently authorized by Congress’s taxing power ....................................................................................... 18 25 26 i Case 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 3 of 41 1 A. The minimum coverage provision operates as a tax and will produce billions of dollars in annual revenue ........................................................... 18 2 3 B. Congress did not disclaim the taxing power ............................................... 19 4 C. Congress may impose regulatory taxes ....................................................... 21 5 D. The minimum coverage provision is not punitive....................................... 22 6 IV. Arizona law does not preempt federal law ........................................................... 23 7 V. The minimum coverage provision is consistent with due process ....................... 24 8 9 A. The minimum coverage provision does not violate a purported due process right to forego insurance ............................................................................. 24 10 11 B. The minimum coverage provision does not violate a due process right of nondisclosure of medical information ............................................ 25 12 VI. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is constitutional ............................... 26 13 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ii Case 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 4 of 41 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 Adventure Res., Inc. v. Holland, 4 137 F.3d 786 (4th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................... 20 5 American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 6 329 U.S. 90 (1946) .............................................................................................. 26, 27 7 Baldwin v. Sebelius, 2010 WL 3418436 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010) ............................................................ 3 8 Bellow v. Sebelius, 9 2011 WL 2470456 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2011)............................................................ 3 10 Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 11 416 U.S. 725 (1974) .................................................................................................. 21 12 Bowsher v. Synar, 13 478 U.S. 361 (1986) ................................................................................................... 29 14 Bryant v. Holder, Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-76 15 2011 WL 710693 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2011) ............................................................... 3 16 The Child Labor Tax Case, 17 259 U.S. 20 (1922) .............................................................................................. 22, 23 18 Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 28 19 20 Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) .................................................................................................. 14 21 Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 22 497 U.S. 261 (1990) .................................................................................................. 24 23 Dent v. Holder, 24 627 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 29 25 Dep’t of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 26 511 U.S. 767 (1994) .................................................................................................. 22 iii Case 2:10-cv-01714-GMS Document 59 Filed 07/05/11 Page 5 of 41 1 Florida v. HHS, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) ............................................................... 19, 25 2 3 Florida v. HHS, --- F. Supp. 2d --- (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011) ....................................................... 2, 8, 9 4 Gonzales v. Raich, 5 545 U.S. 1 (2005) ............................................................................................... passim 6 Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 7 764 F. Supp. 2d 684 (M.D. Pa. 2011) ..................................................................... 2, 3 8 Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314 (1981) .................................................................................................. 10 9 10 J.W. Hampton, Jr.& Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) ............................................................................................ 26, 30 11 Knowlton v. Moore, 12 178 U.S. 41 (1900) .................................................................................................... 23 13 Liberty Univ. v. Geithner, 14 753 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010) .................................................................... 2, 7 15 License Tax Cases, 16 72 U.S. 462 (1866) .................................................................................................... 20 17 Metro. Wash. Airport Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 501 U.S. 252 (1991) ................................................................................................ 5, 6 18 Mistretta v. United States, 19 488 U.S. 361 (1989) ............................................................................................ 26, 30 20 NASA v. Nelson, 21 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011) ................................................................................................ 25 22 Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States, 23 319 U.S. 190 (1943) .................................................................................................