The association said the decision to strike the mandate but uphold the rest of the law by a three-judge panel in a case brought by a small business group and 26 state attorneys general was “incorrect” as it provides line-item veto power to the judicial branch.
“Severance of the individual mandate represents judicial activism at its zenith. It allows the courts to have a judicial line-item veto and to determine the content of a law after it has been enacted,” wrote the association in the brief.
More Articles Featuring the AAPS:
Tax Law Could Push Back Supreme Court Decision on Healthcare Reform
Supreme Court Could Hear Arguments on Health Reform in March
Obama Administration Won’t Review Atlanta Health Reform Decision, Appeals Headed to Supreme Court Amid 2012 Election
