On November 19, 2010, CAC filed a brief in the case on behalf of a bipartisan group of 78 State Legislators from 27 States, supporting the federal government’s argument that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is constitutional and that summary judgment should be granted in its favor.

The group of Legislators represented by CAC includes state Representatives and Senators from across America, many standing in opposition to the efforts of their own state’s Attorney General or Governor to overturn health care reform in court. All of these State Legislators believe the health care reform law is constitutional and is good for their States and constituents, and they are working hard in their States to implement the Act in a timely and effective manner.

As CAC’s brief filed on behalf of the State Legislators showed, the Constitution creates a vibrant system of federalism that gives broad power to the federal government to act in circumstances in which a national solution is necessary or preferable, while reserving a significant role for the States to craft innovative policy solutions that showcase the diversity of America’s people, places, and ideas. Far from violating state sovereignty or the principles of federalism in our Constitution, the health care reform law respects the federal-state partnership and builds upon it.

As CAC’s brief further demonstrated, the conservative state Attorneys General and their allies’ constitutional claims regarding the Act’s expansion of Medicaid—which helps the Act achieve expanded coverage, lower costs, and health insurance security for millions of Americans—are groundless. States cannot be “coerced” or “commandeered” into complying with the new Medicaid requirements for the simple reason that Medicaid is and always has been a wholly voluntary partnership. States are free to opt out and create their own state alternative at any time.

On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson issued a ruling in Florida v. HHS rejecting the constitutional claims regarding the Act’s expansion of Medicaid, as we had urged. However, Judge Vinson went on to rule that the minimum coverage provision of the Act (referred to by some as the “individual mandate”) is unconstitutional, held that this provision could not be severed from the rest of the health care reform law, and proceeded to issue a declaratory judgment striking down the law in its entirety. According to Judge Vinson, Congress lacked the constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, to adopt the minimum coverage provision.  

On April 8, CAC filed a brief in the Eleventh Circuit, supporting the government's appeal and continuing to defend the constitutionality of the health care reform law. The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument in the federal government's appeal of Judge Vinson’s ruling on June 8.  On August 12, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit upheld Judge Vinson’s ruling striking down the Act’s minimum coverage provision. Read CAC’s press release blasting the decision here.

On September 28, the Obama Administration petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the decision. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court granted cert. in this case and will decide the constitutionality of the Act in 2012.