Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44428939/3/III-JURISDICTION
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 11:28:33
Document Index: 350263585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1311', '§ 1101', '§ 1401', '§ 2001', '§ 1421', '§ 1513', '§ 4980', '§ 1513', '§ 1513', '§ 1513', '§ 1501', '§ 5000', '§ 1501', '§ 1501', '§ 1501', '§ 1501']

III. JURISDICTION for Liberty University et al v. Geithner et al
a VirginiaNonprofit Corporation,
ELGESON
EITHNER
Secretary of the Treasuryof the United States,
Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Health and HumanServices,
Secretary of the United StatesDepartment of Labor,
Attorney General of theUnited States,
. 6:10-cv-00015-nkmMEMORANDUM OPINIONJ
On the day the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actof 2009, Plaintiffs filed this action, contesting the law’s validity on constitutional and statutorygrounds. Defendants (several government officials named in their official capacities) moved todismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can begranted. The parties’ arguments have been fully briefed and heard, and for the reasons stated inthis memorandum, I will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 25).
Plaintiffs Liberty University, Inc., Michele G. Waddell, David Stein, M.D., Joanne V.Merrill, Delegate Kathy Byron, and Council Member Jeff Helgeson (collectively “Plaintiffs”)challenge the legality of certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010), as amended by the Health Care andEducation Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (Mar. 30, 2010)(collectively, the “Act”). Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and invalidand an order enjoining its enforcement. Defendants in this action are the following governmentofficials, named in their official capacities: Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury;Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services;Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; and Eric Holder, AttorneyGeneral of the United States. This is not the first judicial ruling on a challenge to the Act.
The Act institutes numerous reforms to the national health care market. It removes manybarriers to insurance coverage,
supplies federal funds and expands Medicaid to assist the poorwith obtaining coverage,
and encourages small businesses to purchase health insurance for theiremployees through tax incentives.
It creates health benefit exchanges, which are establishedand operated by states to serve as marketplaces where informed individuals and small businessescan enroll in health plans after comparing their features.
Act § 1311. The Act also requires
Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius
, 702 F. Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Va. 2010);
Baldwin v.Sebelius
, No. 10-cv-1033, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89192, 2010 WL 3418436 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010);
, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, No. 10-cv-11156, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107416, 2010 WL 3952805(E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2010);
Florida ex rel. McCollum v. U.S. Dep’t Health & Human Servs.
, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120(N.D. Fla. 2010).
Act §§ 1101, 1201 (prohibiting insurers from denying coverage or increasing the price of coverage forindividuals with preexisting medical conditions, from rescinding coverage or declining to renew coverage based onhealth status, and from capping the amount of coverage available to a policyholder).
Act §§ 1401-02 (providing premium tax credits and reduced cost-sharing options for individuals and familieswith income between 100 and 400 percent of the poverty line);
§ 2001 (expanding Medicaid eligibility toindividuals with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level).
Act § 1421.
- 3 -certain large employers to offer health insurance to their employees and requires all individualswho do not meet a statutory exemption to purchase and maintain health insurance. Plaintiffschallenge these mandatory coverage provisions.The “Shared Responsibility for Employers” provision of the Act, § 1513 (adding 26U.S.C. § 4980H) (hereinafter “employer coverage provision” or “employer coveragerequirement”), regulates the level and quality of health coverage that large employers provide totheir employees. It provides that if an “applicable large employer . . . fails to offer to its full-timeemployees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage underan eligible employer-sponsored plan . . . for any month” and at least one full-time employeereceives a “premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction” through a health benefit exchange, thena civil fine is imposed on the employer. Act § 1513(a), (d). An “applicable large employer” isone who employs fifty or more full-time employees on average over a calendar year. Act§ 1513(c)(2). The employer coverage provision goes into effect in 2014. Act § 1513(d).According to the “Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage,” § 1501(adding 26 U.S.C. § 5000A) (hereinafter “individual coverage provision” or “individual coveragerequirement”) every “applicable individual” must obtain “minimum essential coverage” for eachmonth or pay a penalty, which is included with the individual’s tax return. Act § 1501(a)-(b).An “applicable individual” is any individual except one who qualifies for a religious exemption,who is not a United States citizen, national, or an alien lawfully present in the United States, orwho is incarcerated. Act § 1501(d).
The individual coverage provision takes effect in 2014.Act § 1501(a).
An “applicable individual” may still be exempted from the requirement to purchase health insurance if she cannotafford such coverage because the required contribution exceeds eight percent of her household income. Act§ 1501(e). Taxpayers with income under 100 percent of the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and individualsdetermined to suffer “a hardship” with respect to the capability to obtain coverage are also exempted.
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. III. JURISDICTION for Liberty University et al v. Geithner et alMemorandum Opinion of Judge Norman Moon in Liberty University v. Geithner et al, ruling on constitutionality of Affordable Care ActDownload or PrintAdd To Collection1.4KReads4Readcasts399Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published bydmataconisFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansGet Scribd MobileThere was a problem sending you an sms. Check your phone number or try again later.To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.Text meWe'll never share your phone number.iTunes App Store | Google Play StoreSectionsI. BACKGROUNDII. APPLICABLE LAWIII. JURISDICTIONIV. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE IV. TENTH AMENDMENTVI. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEVII. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTVIII. EQUAL PROTECTIONIX. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATIONX. CAPITATION TAX AND DIRECT TAXXI. GUARANTEE CLAUSEXII. CONCLUSIONInfo and RatingCategory:Business/Law > Court FilingsRating:Upload Date:12/01/2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download as PDF File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/44428939/Liberty-University-et-al-v-Geithner-et-al01/15/2013pdftextoriginal
Recommended2 p.w Rubidoux 1110The Press-Enterprise / PE.com632 Reads18 p.Newland PI Orderkdial40603 Reads57 p.Thomas More Society's Federal lawsuit on behalf of “Stand Up for Re...Tom Ciesielka826 Reads90 p.Romeikes Brief.pdfBethany798691 Reads8 p.EF10K46Catherine Snow3008 Reads2 p.Letter to the Alabama Department of Public HealthTom Ciesielka450 Reads42 p.12-13 #6_Fifteen StatesEqualityCaseFiles3035 Reads19 p.Regnerus Studykdial4012923 Reads20 p.Thomas More Law Center et al v. Obamadmataconis3951 Reads64 p.Judge Kessler: Health Care Reform Is Constitutional tpmdocs10169 Reads
More From This User29 p.Salinas v. Texasdmataconis48 Reads51 p.Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona et aldmataconis24 Reads26 p.Good Morning To You Productions v. Warner-Chappell Musicdmataconis83 Reads14 p.United States v. Ernest Johnson Rulingdmataconis74 Reads22 p.Association of Molecular Pathology et al v. Myriad Genetics, et aldmataconis99 Reads12 p.ACLU et al v. James Clapper et aldmataconis57 Reads40 p.Complaint in Paterno v. NCAA dmataconis54 Reads28 p.Pennsylvania v. NCAA Dismissal Orderdmataconis56 Reads50 p.Maryland v. King SCOTUS Opiniondmataconis74 Reads4 p.Google National Security Letter Orderdmataconis68 Reads4 p.Order to Decrypt Computer dmataconis71 Reads4 p.Letter To Washington Redskins Owner Dan Snyderdmataconis80 Reads142 p.Melendres v. Arpaio decisiondmataconis168 Reads5 p.Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Patrick Leahy r...dmataconis141 Reads2 p.Letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole to Associated Pressdmataconis113 Reads3 p.Letter From Department of State to Defense Distributeddmataconis63 Reads20 p.Criminal Complaint in United States v. Kadyrbayev et aldmataconis249 Reads9 p.United States v. Tsarnaev - Transcript of initial Hearingdmataconis870 Reads11 p.United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Criminal Complaintdmataconis2163 Reads59 p.Tummino et al v. Hamburg et aldmataconis214 Reads135 p.United States v. Windsor Transcriptdmataconis107 Reads82 p.Hollingsworth v. Perry Transcriptdmataconis118 Reads47 p.Canning v. National Labor Relations Board et aldmataconis487 Reads43 p.2013 01 02 Pennsylvania Ncaa Lawsuitdmataconis547 Reads47 p.Filibuster Decisiondmataconis486 Reads