Rule of Law

Who Best Represents State Views Of The Affordable Care Act At The U.S. Supreme Court?

More than 500 State Legislators From All 50 States File Amicus Brief Defending Constitutionality of Health Care Reform Law

Washington, DC – In a brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court today by Constitutional Accountability Center, more than 500 state representatives and senators from every state in the Union – plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia – have signed on to defend the Affordable Care Act, grounded in the Constitution’s text and history and the views of its Framers, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.

Doug Kendall, President of Constitutional Accountability Center, said, “The Affordable Care Act has the Constitution’s text and history on its side. It has the nation’s Founders on its side. It has Supreme Court precedent on its side. It has two of the most conservative appellate judges in America on its side. And now it has more than 500 state legislators from every State in America on its side.” CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra added, “For months, conservatives have pretended that there was only one view of the health care reform law at the state level, and that was the warped tea party view. Today that pretense is destroyed. No longer do the Act’s challengers have a monopoly on who represents the States in this case.”

#

Resources:

CAC brief amici curiae defending the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (pdf): https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Florida_v_HHS_Merits_Amicus_Mandate.pdf

CAC Issue Brief: “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution” (pdf): https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20100501_Issue_Brief_CAC_States_Health_Care_Refom_and_the_Constitution.pdf

CAC Issue Brief: “Setting the Record Straight: The Tea Party and the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government” (pdf): https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Download-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Here.pdf

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra, “Can health ruling sink tea party?” POLITICO, November 10, 2011:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html

CAC President Doug Kendall: “Health Care Reform: Preserving Judicial Independence in a Partisan Age,” June 3, 2011:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/health-care-reform-preser_b_870988.html

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

###

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.