Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
5-13-2020
Abstract
Amici are experts in constitutional law, legislation, statutory interpretation, and administrative law. They disagree on many legal and policy questions concerning the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), including many questions about how to interpret it and whether the plaintiff States have standing in the present case. Yet they agree on this: even assuming the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, it is severable from the other provisions of the ACA. Any contrary conclusion would be inconsistent with settled law and Congress’s clearly expressed intent. Amici respectfully submit this amicus brief to explain this point.<\p>
Amici’s goal in fling this brief is limited. This brief takes no position on whether plaintiffs have a justiciable claim. Nor does it address plaintiffs’ argument that the minimum coverage provision (commonly called the individual mandate) is unconstitutional in light of Congress’s reduction to zero of the penalties associated with it. Instead, the brief assumes the answer to both questions is yes in order to reach the question of severability. Under the settled approach to severability that this Court has followed consistently for more than 100 years, the question here is not debatable: the mandate is severable from the rest of the ACA. Any other conclusion would be a judicial usurpation of Congress’s lawmaking power.<\p>
Recommended Citation
Bagley, Nicholas, "California v. Texas: Brief for Jonathan H. Adler, Nicholas Bagley, Abbe R. Gluck, and Ilya Somin as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner" (2020). Appellate Briefs. 67.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/67
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Legislation Commons
Comments
Amicus: Adler, Jonathan H.; Bagley, Nicholas; Gluck, Abbe R.; Somin, Ilya