Whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the ACA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 28, 2010), with the express goal of achieving nearuniversal health-insurance coverage. To achieve that goal, Congress found it was “essential” to require healthy Americans to ensure that they have what Congress considered minimum essential coverage. In 2012, this Court held that “[t]he Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.” Nat'l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius (“NFIB”), 567 U.S. 519, 575 (2012) (op. of Roberts, C.J.). The Court upheld the requirement, however, because it was “fairly possible” to construe the mandate as a tax. Id. at 574. In 2017, Congress eliminated that alternative construction by zeroing out any penalty. That legislative act rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional, as the court below correctly held. The Court should deny the petitions in Nos. 19-840 and 19-841. But if it grants them, it should grant this conditional cross-petition, as well, which presents the following questions: 1. Whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the ACA. 2. Whether the district court properly declared the ACA invalid in its entirety and unenforceable anywhere.