Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

Linked with:

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-400	11th Cir.	Mar 28, 2012 Tr.Aud.	Jun 28, 2012	5-4	Roberts	OT 2011

Holding: The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” provision, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, even though the mandate has not yet gone into effect. Although the mandate is not authorized under the Commerce Clause, it is nonetheless a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Finally, the Medicaid expansion provision of the ACA violates the Constitution by threatening states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.

Judgment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, 2012. The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate, and five Justices (the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) agree that the individual mandate is constitutional. Seven Justices (the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer and Kagan, along with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) agree that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Kagan joined except as to Medicaid expansion. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Academic highlight: Clashing perspectives in the Harvard Law Review's 2011 Supreme Court Issue (Amanda Frost)
• A giant hole in the safety net? (Lyle Denniston)
• Don't call it a mandate -- it's a tax (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
• A reader's guide to health care ruling (Lyle Denniston)
• Health care: Time to sum up (Lyle Denniston)
• New plea to rule on health mandate (Lyle Denniston)
• In Plain English: Conditions or unconstitutional coercion? (Amy Howe)
• Argument recap: Will Medicaid be sacrificed? (FINAL UPDATE 7:08 pm) (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument recap: Moving on to the mandate (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument preview: Health care, Part III -- Beyond the mandate (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument preview: Health care, Part II -- Fate of the mandate (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument preview: Health care, Part I -- The power to decide? (Lyle Denniston)
• Prompt release of health care audiotapes (Lyle Denniston)
• Challengers lose on health arguments (Lyle Denniston)
• Health care challengers' view on argument (Lyle Denniston)
• A note on Kagan and health care (Lyle Denniston)
• States: "Coercion" theory is at stake (Lyle Denniston)
• Health care debate reopens (Lyle Denniston)
• Analysis: Health care's legal, political fate (Lyle Denniston)
• Analysis: Health care's Medicaid expansion (Lyle Denniston)
• Analysis: Health care's other mandate (Lyle Denniston)
• Health care schedule set (Lyle Denniston)
• The health care grants: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
• The Court's agenda on health care (Lyle Denniston)
• Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care (FINAL) (Lyle Denniston)
• Health care: Now, it's the Court's turn (Lyle Denniston)

Briefs and Documents

• SCOTUSblog Health Care resource page
• Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act symposium page
• Lyle Denniston’s Media Guide

From the Oral Argument

• SCOTUSblog’s highlights from the argument audio are here.

Merits Briefs for the Florida and the Private Petitioners Regarding Severability

• Brief for Private Petitioners
• Brief for the State Petitioners 
• Reply Brief for Private Petitioners
• Reply Brief  for the State Petitioners

Amicus Briefs in Support of Florida and the Private Petitioners Regarding  Severability

• Brief for the American Civil Rights Union
• Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
• Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
• Brief for the Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. 
• Brief for Economists
• Brief for the Family Research Council 
• Brief for the Justice and Freedom Fund
• Brief for Members of the United States Senate
• Brief for the National Restaurant Association 
• Brief for the Western Center for Journalism 
• Brief for America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
• Brief for Texas Public Policy Foundation and Cato Institute

Merits Briefs for the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding Severability

• Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al.
• Reply Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Department of Health and Human Services  Regarding Severability

• Brief for the National Indian Health Board, et al.
• Brief for the Michigan Legal Services, Inc., and Other Michigan Non-Profit Corporations
• Brief for California et al.
• Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
• Brief for the American Public Health Association et al.
• Brief for the American Medical Student Association et al.
• Brief for AARP et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party

• Brief for the American Hospital Association, et al., on severability

Merits Briefs for the Court-Appointed Amicus

• Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae Supporting Complete Severability

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Court-Appointed Amicus

• Brief for Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, et al.
• Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
• Brief for the Washington and Lee University School of Law Black Lung Clinic
• Brief for the Michigan Legal Services, Inc., and Other Michigan Non-Profit Corporations 

Merits Briefs for the State Petitioners Regarding Medicaid

• Brief for Florida et al.
• Reply brief for Florida et al.

Amicus Briefs Supporting the State Petitioners Regarding Medicaid

• Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
• Brief for Association of American Physicians et al.
• Brief for Catholic Sisters in Support of Respondents Regarding the Medicaid Issue
• Brief for the Independence Institute 
• Brief for Indiana State Legislators et al.
• Brief for James F. Blumstein
• Brief for Texas Public Policy Foundation and 36 Texas State Legislators
• Brief for Economists
• Brief for Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and Individual Physicians

Merits Briefs for the Respondents Regarding Medicaid

• Brief for the  Department of Health and Human Services et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Department of Health and Human Services on Medicaid

• Brief for the National Minority AIDS Council
• Brief for the American Hospital Association et al. 
• Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
• Brief for David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., et al.
• Brief for Health Law & Policy Scholars and Prescription Policy Choices
• Brief for National Health Law Program et al.
• Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win
  Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid et al.
• Brief for State Legislators from the Fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
• Brief for Oregon et al.
• Brief for Faithful Reform in Health Care and the WISC Health Care Working Group 
• Brief for the Disability Rights Legal Center

 

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (11th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners' reply
• Amicus brief of America's Health Insurance Plans
• Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (forthcoming)
• Amicus brief of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (forthcoming)
• Amicus brief of American Center for Law and Justice
• Amicus brief of Family Research Council
• Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
• Amicus brief of Lawrence J. Dickson, Ph.D.