Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

FLORIDA V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Docket No.: 11-400
Certiorari Granted: 11/14/11
Argued: March 28, 2012
Decided: 06/28/12
Consolidated with: 11-39390

Topics:

14th Amendment, 4th Amendment, ADA, Administrative Procedure, Affordable Care Act, Anti-Injunction Act, Appropriations Clause, Article I, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Code, Bill of Rights, Commerce Clause, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, EPA, ERISA, Eleventh Amendment, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Federal Taxation, Federalism, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, General Welfare Clause, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Internal Revenue Code, Medicaid, Medicare, Necessary and Proper, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Social Security Act, Supremacy Clause, Tenth Amendment, Twenty-First Amendment, abuse of discretion, background checks, child labor, immigration, pension plan, preemption, public schools, separation of powers, willful violation

PartyNames: Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Petitioner: Florida, et al.
Respondent: Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: 648 F.3d 1235

Florida, et al.
v.
Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Consideration Limited:

GRANTED LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF SEVERABILITY PRESENTED BY QUESTION 3 OF THE PETITION. PETITION ALSO GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION (ADDITIONAL 60 MINUTES ORAL ARGUMENT ALLOTTED). H. BARTOW FARR, III, ESQ. IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THESE CASES, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, 26 U.S.C. ยง5001, IS SEVERABLE FROM THE ENTIRETY OF THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT.

Question Presented:

1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply? 2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing invasive mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia's approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress's power to interfere with state sovereignty? 3. Does the Affordable Care Act's mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress's enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?

FLORIDA V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ORAL ARGUMENT

03/28/12

Listen to Oral Argument in FLORIDA V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Holding: SEE OPINION
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)