Fw: Action Alert: Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Challenge
Jon Roland
Supreme
Court
News 11/14/2011 (Certiorari)
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT NEWS
Willamette Law Online
- Willamette University College of Law
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
On November 14, 2011,
the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the
five cases summarized below.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
In this issue:
(1) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Whether a child conceived after his biological father's death and prohibited by state intestacy law from inheriting personal property is nonetheless eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.)
(2) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's expansion of the Medicaid law exceeds Congress's power under the Spending Clause of Article I.)
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be invalidated because its mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is nonseverable from the remainder of the Act.)
(4) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ((1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’s Article I power because it includes a mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a monetary fine; and (2) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), bars suits by challengers to the Act.)
(5) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the City of Indianapolis violated the 14th Amendment by forgiving outstanding assessments for some property owners while not offering refunds for others who had paid in full.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CERTIORARI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1) Astrue v. Capato (11-159)
Granted: 11/14/2011
Court Below: 631 F.3d 626 (3rd Cir. 2011)
Full Text: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Opbelow_Astrue.pdf
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (Whether a child conceived after his biological father's death and prohibited by state intestacy law from inheriting personal property is nonetheless eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.)
After Mr. Capato was diagnosed with cancer and warned that chemotherapy might sterilize him, he deposited his semen in a sperm bank for frozen storage. Two years later Mrs. Capato gave birth to a naturally-conceived son, but Mr. Capato died before they could have any more children. In his will, Mr. Capato listed his beneficiaries as his son with Mrs. Capato and two children from a prior marriage. Eighteen months after her husband’s death, Mrs. Capato gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization, and one month later Mrs. Capato applied for surviving child’s insurance benefits for the twins based on her husband‘s earnings record. The Social Security Administration denied her claim and the District Court affirmed. Mrs. Capato appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded based on its interpretation of Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq) which provides survivor’s benefits for children of a fully or currently insured individual who were “dependent upon the deceased individual at the time of his or her death.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question, "whether a child who was conceived after the death of a biological parent, but who cannot inherit personal property from that biological parent under applicable state intestacy law, is eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq." [Summarized by Matt Dyal]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(2) Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (11-400)
Granted: 11/14/11
Court Below: 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011)
Full Text: http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/CA11+opinion.pdf
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's expansion of the Medicaid law exceeds Congress's power under the Spending Clause of Article I.)
(In its review of the healthcare law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to each question independently. This is a summary of the first question presented by petitioners. One hour of argument time allotted on this question.)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”), as amended by the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, seeks in part to expand Medicaid coverage by extending eligibility for Medicaid to individuals under 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The Act provides that the federal government will pay 100 percent of the expenditures required to cover these newly eligible Medicaid recipients through 2016. Thereafter, the Act imposes on the states an obligation to pay up to 10 percent of the cost to fund the expansion of coverage. Twenty-six states brought suit against the federal Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor Departments and their Secretaries arguing that the Act is unconstitutional under South Dakota v. Dole as unduly coercive on the states
The District court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government holding that Congress had the power to expand Medicaid coverage. On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed, holding that the Act's Medicaid expansion is constitutional because, while the Act puts pressure on the states to comply, the states still have a real choice to participate, and the Act is not so coercive as to violate the Tenth Amendment's restriction on the use of the spending power to encourage state legislation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of a circuit split. [Summarized By: Eric Wareham]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(3) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (11-393)
Granted: 11/14/2011
Court Below: 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011)
Full Text: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111021.pdf
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be invalidated because its mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is nonseverable from the remainder of the Act.)
(Consolidated with question three in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (11-400) for ninety minutes of argument on this question.)
Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which comprehensively restructured and reformed the health care system. The Act contains a provision that mandates virtually every American must maintain minimum health insurance or face a financial penalty. The National Federation of Independent Business, two private citizens, and 26 states filed suit in federal court challenging the Act's constitutionality, asserting that the Act exceeds Congress's power under Article I of the Constitution.
The district court struck down the entire Act, holding that the individual mandate is nonseverable because it represents an essential part of Congress's reform efforts and because the remainder of the Act could not survive independently. The district court entered a declaratory judgment that the entire Act is void, but stayed its judgment pending appeal. The 11th Circuit reversed the district court's decision regarding severability, holding that although the individual mandate is facially unconstitutional, it is severable from the remainder of the Act because the Act contains numerous stand-alone provisions which lack connection to the individual mandate. [Summarized By: Michael Jones]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(4) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (11-398)
Granted: 11/14/11
Court Below: 648 F. 3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011)
Full Text: http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/CA11+opinion.pdf
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ((1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’s Article I power because it includes a mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a monetary fine; and (2) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), bars suits by challengers to the Act.)
(A total of two hours is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. One hour is allotted for oral argument on the additional question.)
Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) in an effort to address rising health care costs and to provide affordable insurance coverage for uninsured Americans. Since its enactment, the Act has been widely challenged by twenty-six states, individuals, and private businesses who object in particular to section 1601, which requires individuals to obtain federally approved health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. Challengers of the Act assert that section 1601 is outside the scope of Congress’s power granted by the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They also claim that the penalty imposed on individuals who fail to maintain minimum health insurance is not a tax and, therefore, is not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Whether or not the penalty is a tax is relevant to whether the suit could be barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which bars suits that restrain the collection of a tax.
The District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding that the Act was unconstitutional as a whole since section 1601 was non-severable and outside the boundaries of Congress’s Commerce Power. The District court also held that the penalty imposed was not a tax. On a motion for clarification by the government, the District Court entered a stay pending appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part holding that section 1601 was outside Congress’s Commerce power. It also held that the individual mandate operated as a regulatory penalty, and not a tax pursuant to the Taxing and Spending Clause, because the goal of the individual mandate was not to raise revenue, but to reduce the number of the uninsured and to make health insurance more widely available. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address conflicting opinions among the federal circuit courts. [Summarized by: Joanna Fluckey]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(5) Armour v. Indianapolis (11-161)
Granted: 11/14/11
Court Below: 946 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. 2011)
Full Text: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Opbelow_Armour.pdf
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Whether the City of Indianapolis violated the 14th Amendment by forgiving outstanding assessments for some property owners while not offering refunds for others who had paid in full.)
Indiana’s Barrett Law permits municipalities to fund public improvements by levying special assessments against the benefiting properties. In 2004, the Indianapolis Board of Public Works (“Board”) levied a per-property special assessment of $9,278 against approximately 180 parcels in the Northern Estates neighborhood. The assessment was the result of a public works project that connected those properties to the city sewer system, eliminating the need for septic tanks. Property owners were given the option of paying the assessment in a single lump sum or in monthly installments for a period of years. The monthly installment was subject to a 3.5% annual interest rate and a statutory lien placed on the property. In 2005, the City-County Council of Indianapolis-Marion County adopted the Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP) to finance sewer projects and eliminated the use of the Barrett Law financing method. The Board then passed a resolution forgiving all outstanding assessment balances on Barrett Law projects owing as of November 1, 2005. As a result, the 142 parcel owners in the Northern Estates neighborhood who had opted to pay in monthly installments were discharged from their outstanding debts. However, the remaining parcel owners who had paid the assessment in full did not receive any refund. In early 2006, the property owners who had paid in full petitioned the Board for a refund equivalent to that received by the other 142 property owners. The Board denied the petition.
Thirty one of the parcel owners who paid the assessment in full filed a complaint against the City of Indianapolis in July of 2007, alleging the city violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, and seeking a Barrett Law assessment refund. The trial court granted Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against Respondents. Respondents appealed. On appeal Petitioners dropped the due process claim, and proceeded only on equal protection grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and Respondents sought and were granted transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held that assessment balance forgiveness was rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and therefore Respondents had not violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Summarized By: Megan M. Perry]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS
Willamette Law Online – Willamette University College of Law
Editor-in-Chief: Lucy Fleck, lfl...@willamette.edu
US Supreme Court Editors:
Jessica Osborne, josb...@willamette.edu
Molly Lehrkind, mleh...@willamette.edu
US Supreme Court Senior Writers: Rory Gates, Adriana
Jimenez, Eric Wareham
US Supreme Court Writers: Joanna Fluckey, Kelly Huedepohl,
Michael Jones, Zack Stern, Melissa Douglas, Megan Perry, Matt
Dyal, Joseph Elwood, Megan Cox
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo/
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note: Willamette Law Online functions as a notification
service,
alerting users to legal decisions and trends, and is neither
intended to
be a comprehensive resource of case law nor a substitute for
in-depth
legal research. If the Supreme Court posts Orders granting
Certiorari
before 12:00 pm (PT), then the notification containing the
daily
Certiorari summaries will be sent out the same day. If the
Supreme court
posts Order granting Certiorari after 12:00 pm (PT), then the
notification
containing the daily Certiorari summaries will be sent out the
following
business day. The Court posts its opinions on Findlaw, thus
providing the
source for links to the full text of the cases. Occasionally,
these links
become available online after this service has already
published its
edition and cannot, therefore, be included in the edition.
Molly Lehrkind
Editor, Supreme Court Service
Willamette Law Online
JD Candidate 2012
mleh...@willamette.edu
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | Action Alert: Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Challenge |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:14:23 -0800 |
| From: | Our Friends of Freedom <mark...@ourfriendsoffreedom.com> |
| Reply-To: | in...@ourfriendsoffreedom.com |
| To: | Concerned Friend <jon.r...@constitution.org> |
|
NFIB 53 Century Blvd, Suite 250 Nashville, TN 37214 |
|
Forward this Email to a Friend OurFriendsofFreedom.com P.O. Box 25574 Alexandria, VA 22313 |
This message was intended for: jon.r...@constitution.org
You were added to the system August 4, 2011. For more
information
click
here.
Update
your preferences | Unsubscribe
