54 Pages Posted: 2 Jun 2012 Last revised: 15 Jul 2014
Date Written: May 22, 2012
The minimum coverage provision does not require individuals to purchase any unique product or service but rather requires a standardized financial contribution to the national healthcare infrastructure from all legal residents who are able to pay – a kind of requirement that has never been found unduly or even unusually restrictive of individual liberty.
The question presented is whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in finding that the minimum coverage provision’s implications for individual liberty support a holding of constitutional invalidity under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause.
Keywords: Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, minimum coverage provision
JEL Classification: K32, K39
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Moncrieff, Abigail R. and Fischer, Andrew M and Sajor, Zoe Elizabeth and Smit, Rachel and Westfall, Emily Marie and Fischer, Andrew, Brief of Amici Curiae Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action (JALSA), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (JCUA), Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN), New England Jewish Labor Commmittee (JLC), and Professor Abigail R. Moncrieff in Support of Petitioners on the Individual Liberal Implications of the Minimum Coverage Provision in Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida (May 22, 2012). Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-25. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2070617 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2070617