NFIB Certiorari Petition In NFIB v. Sebelius

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    23-Feb-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    70
  • download

    2

Embed Size (px)

description

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari filed by National Federation of Independent Business in NFIB v. Sebelius, a companion case to Florida v. HHS

Transcript of NFIB Certiorari Petition In NFIB v. Sebelius

No. ______ IN THE

Supreme Court of the United StatesNATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, KAJ AHLBURG, AND MARY BROWN,

Petitioners,v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, ET AL.,

Respondents.On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

KAREN R. HARNED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NFIB SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER 1201 F St. NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20004

MICHAEL A. CARVIN GREGORY G. KATSAS C. KEVIN MARSHALL HASHIM M. MOOPPAN JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 879-3939macarvin@jonesday.com

Counsel of Record

Counsel for Petitioners(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)

RANDY E. BARNETT CARMACK WATERHOUSE PROFESSOR OF LEGAL THEORY GEORGETOWN UNIV. LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress effected a sweeping and comprehensive restructuring of the Nations health-insurance markets in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 109 (2010) (collectively, the ACA or Act). But the Eleventh Circuit and the Sixth Circuit now have issued directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of the ACAs mandate that virtually every individual American must obtain health insurance. 26 U.S.C. 5000A. Moreover, despite the fact that the mandate is a requirement that Congress itself deemed essential to the Acts new insurance regulations, 42 U.S.C. 18091(a)(2)(I), the Eleventh Circuit held that the mandate is severable from the remainder of the Act. The question presented is whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.

ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioners, who were Plaintiffs-Appellees below, are: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); Kaj Ahlburg; and Mary Brown. NFIB is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation that promotes and protects the rights of its members to own, operate, and grow their small businesses across the fifty States and the District of Columbia. NFIB is not a publicly traded corporation, issues no stock, and has no parent corporation. There is no publicly held corporation with more than a 10% ownership stake in NFIB. Respondents, who were DefendantsAppellants/Cross-Appellees below, are: Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs.; Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury; Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor; the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs.; the U.S. Dept of Treasury; and the U.S. Dept of Labor. In addition, 26 States, by and through their Attorneys General or Governors, were PlaintiffsAppellees/Cross-Appellants below: Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Louisiana; Maine; Michigan; Mississippi; Nebraska; Nevada; North Dakota; Ohio; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Utah; Washington; Wisconsin; and Wyoming.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.......................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............ 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 1 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ........ 8 I. WHETHER THE MANDATE IS NONSEVERABLE FROM THE REST OF THE ACA IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION THAT WARRANTS THIS COURTS IMMEDIATE REVIEW ..................................... 10

II. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITS DECISION IS THE BEST VEHICLE FOR A DEFINITIVE RESOLUTION OF THE ACAS VALIDITY .............................................. 13 A. The Sixth Circuits Thomas More Decision Suffers From Vehicle Problems Due To The Plaintiffs Contested Standing And Their Failure To Litigate Severability .............................. 13

iv B. The

Liberty Fourth Circuits University Decision Is An Inferior Vehicle Because Its Anti-Injunction Act Holding Is Irrelevant At This Stage And Erroneous In Any Event ........... 15

III. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT INCORRECTLY SEVERED THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FROM THE REST OF THE ACA...................... 19 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 21

APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Aug. 12, 2011) ................................................... 1a APPENDIX B: Opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Jan. 31, 2011) ................................... 286a APPENDIX C: Opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Oct. 14, 2010) ................................... 384a APPENDIX D: Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Mar. 3, 2011) .................................... 468a APPENDIX E: Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ........................................ 494a

v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, Bowles v. Russell,

480 U.S. 678 (1987) ........................................20, 21

416 U.S. 725 (1974) ..................................16, 17, 18 551 U.S. 205 (2007) ............................................. 16

Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,

130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) ....................................19, 20

Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs.,

No. 10-763, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2011 WL 4072875 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011) ...... 11

Henderson v. Shinseki,

131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011) ......................................... 16 No. 10-2347, ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 3962915 (4th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) ................................. passim

Liberty Univ. v. Geithner,

New York v. United States,

505 U.S. 144 (1992) ............................................. 10

Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Alton R.R. Co.,

551 U.S. 701 (2007) ............................................. 14

158 U.S. 601 (1895) ............................................. 20 295 U.S. 330 (1935) ........................................20, 21

vi

South Carolina v. Regan,

465 U.S. 367 (1984) ............................................. 19 129 S. Ct. 1142 (2009) ......................................... 14

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama,

720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ............... 15 No. 10-2388, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 2556039 (6th Cir. June 29, 2011) ............................... passim

United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.,

518 U.S. 213 (1996) ............................................. 17 Nos. 11-1057 & 11-1058, ---F.3d---, 2011 WL 3925617 (4th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) ........... 7 278 U.S. 235 (1929) ........................................20, 21

Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius,

Williams v. Standard Oil Co.,

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES AND STATUTES U.S. Const., art. 1, 8, cl. 1....................................... 1 U.S. Const., art. 1, 8, cl. 3....................................... 1 U.S. Const., art. 1, 8, cl. 18..................................... 1 26 U.S.C. 5000A.............................................1, 3, 17 26 U.S.C. 7421 ...........................................16, 17, 18 28 U.S.C. 1254 ........................................................ 1 42 U.S.C. 18091 .............................................2, 3, 20 RULES Fed. R. App. P. 35 ...................................................... 1 Fed. R. App. P. 40 ...................................................... 1

vii OTHER AUTHORITIES CBO, Effects of Eliminating the Individual Mandate to Obtain Health Insurance (June 16, 2010), http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs /113xx/doc11379/Eliminate__Individual_Ma ndate_06_16.pdf..................................................... 4 Dennis P. Lockhart, Business Feedback on Todays Labor Market (Nov. 11, 2010), http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/ ......................... 12 http://healthreform.kff.org/Timeline.aspx. ............. 13

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners NFIB, Ahlburg, and Brown respectfully submit this petition for a writ of certiorari. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Pet.App. 1a) is not yet reported in the Federal Reporter, but is available at 2011 WL 3519178. The summary-judgment opinion of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pet.App. 286a) is not yet reported in the Federal Supplement, but is available at 2011 WL 285683. The district courts motion-to-dismiss opinion (Pet.App. 384a) is reported at 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120. JURISDICTION The Eleventh Circuit entered judgment on August 12, 2011. The time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc elapsed 45 days later, on September 26, 2011. Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a)(1). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The appendix reproduces the Constitutions Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and Tax Clause. U.S. Const., art. 1, 8, cls. 1, 3, 18.