Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Florida v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Cato Legal Briefs

Florida v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Cato Legal Briefs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 677 |Likes:
Published by Cato Institute

More info:

Published by: Cato Institute on May 11, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067I
N THE
 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit________________________S
TATE OF
F
LORIDA
,
 
by and through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.U
NITED
S
TATES
D
EPARTMENT OF
H
EALTH
&
 
H
UMAN
S
ERVICES
, et al.,Defendants-Appellants.________________________On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Florida________________________BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
OF THE CATO INSTITUTESUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCEIlya Shapiro
Counsel of Record 
David H. RittgersC
ATO
I
NSTITUTE
 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 842-0200ishapiro@cato.org
Counsel for 
Amicus Curiae
 
 
State of Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services 11-11021 & 11-11067 
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONSAND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and Eleventh Cir. R. 26.1-1, the CatoInstitute declares that it is a nonprofit public policy research foundation dedicatedin part to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law. Cato states that ithas no parent corporation and only issues a handful of shares that are privately heldby its directors. No publicly held corporation has a direct financial interest in theoutcome of this litigation due to the participation of Cato.Further, the undersigned counsel certifies that, in addition to the list of interested persons certified in the Appellants’ Brief and supplemented by thecertificates in the Briefs of the State Appellees-Cross-Appellants and the PrivatePlaintiffs-Appellees, the following persons may have an interest in the outcome of this case,
 
and that to the best of his knowledge, the list of persons and entities inthe Briefs for Appellants and Appellees are otherwise complete:C
OUNSEL FOR
 A
 MICUS
URIAE 
 Ilya ShapiroDavid H. RittgersO
THER
P
ERSONS
 Trevor BurrusRobert A. LevyRoger PilonTimothy SandefurA
SSOCIATIONS
 Cato Institute_____________________Counsel for
 Amicus Curiae
C-1
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATEDISCLOSURE STATEMENTS..................................................................C-1TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iiiINTEREST OF
 AMI CUS CURIAE 
...........................................................................1ISSUE ADDRESSED BY
 AMICUS CURIAE 
..........................................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................................2ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................5I. The Individual Mandate Exceeds the Scope of the Necessary and ProperClause as Used to Execute the Power to Regulate Interstate CommerceUnder the “Substantial Effects” Doctrine........................................................5A. The “Substantial Effects” Doctrine Applies the Necessary and ProperClause to the Commerce Power and Allows Congress to Use ItsRegulatory Authority While Cabining That Authority..............................5B. Regulating Inactivity Transcends the Necessary and Proper Clause'sLimits on the Commerce Clause..............................................................12II. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified as an “Essential Part of aBroader Regulatory Scheme” Because Congress Cannot RegulateInactivity........................................................................................................14A. Congress Cannot Compel Activity as Part of a Broader EconomicScheme......................................................................................................14B. Inactivity Is Not a Type of Activity..........................................................21III. The Individual Mandate Constitutes a “Commandeering of the People”That Is Not “Proper” Under the Necessary and Proper Clause.....................23
 
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................28
i

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->