Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
:
:
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation. This article describes the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.
On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General Mike DeWine on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the “Transitional Reinsurance Program” of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary “contributions” from State and local governments.
On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge . Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW, filed by Patrick Morrisey. David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law".
On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge . Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.
On December 4, 2012 (12-cv-06744/13-1144)United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Constitutional Challenge ., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case lost but was eventually combined with Hobby Lobby case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
On September 12,2012 (12-CV-01000-HE/12-6294), United States District Court
For The Western District Of Oklahoma, Constitutional Challenge Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case won but was eventually combined with Conestoga Wood Specialties case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge . Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the “Origination Clause” of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all.
:
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation. This article describes the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.
On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General Mike DeWine on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the “Transitional Reinsurance Program” of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary “contributions” from State and local governments.
On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge . Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education”, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW, filed by Patrick Morrisey. David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law".
On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge . Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.
On December 4, 2012 (12-cv-06744/13-1144)United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Constitutional Challenge ., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case lost but was eventually combined with Hobby Lobby case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
On September 12,2012 (12-CV-01000-HE/12-6294), United States District Court
For The Western District Of Oklahoma, Constitutional Challenge Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case won but was eventually combined with Conestoga Wood Specialties case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge . Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the “Origination Clause” of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all.
Comments