Opinion ID: 809108
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Character of the Government Action

Text: The third and final consideration in the regulatory takings analysis -- the character of the government action -- also weighs against the Trust's takings claim. Under Penn Central, [a] 'taking' may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government than when [the] interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. Id. (citation omitted). L.D. 1326 clearly falls on the latter end of the spectrum, reflecting the legislature's judgment that allowing school districts to access their employees' loss information will promote the common good by creating a wider array of competitively priced group health insurance options. See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 20-A, § 1001(14)(E) (enabling school districts to request their loss information [i]n order to facilitate the competitive bidding process in procuring [group] health insurance). The Trust argues that even if the Act is intended to promote the common good, it does so improperly by reallocating to the Trust alone what is essentially a public burden. Claiming that -25- it has been effectively singl[ed] out by the Maine legislature, the Trust directs us to five comments in the Act's legislative record which, more or less, appear to cast the Trust in a negative light. The argument, however, is unavailing. L.D. 1326 does not apply solely to the Trust; it applies to every existing or future multi-employer group health insurance plan in which the State's public school districts choose to enroll. That the Trust attracted the attention of a handful of legislators, and currently bears the brunt of the Act's burden, is merely a byproduct of its holding the predominant share of the targeted market -- a virtual monopoly, perpetuated by the very policy of non-disclosure which it seeks to protect. At the preliminary injunction stage, the Trust has not shown that the Act attempts to impose on the Trust an excessive burden that should in fairness be borne by other entities or by society as a whole. Cf. E. Enter. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 537 (1998) (holding that the character of a state regulation supported the movant's takings claim only where it single[d] out certain employers to bear a burden that is substantial in amount, based on the employers' conduct far in the past, and unrelated to any commitment that the employers made or to any injury that they caused). Thus, the third Penn Central factor, like the two before it, counsels against finding that a taking has occurred. -26- We emphasize that because we hear this matter on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction, our likelihood-ofsuccess determinations are to be understood only as probable outcomes. See Cohen, 991 F.2d at 902. At the upcoming trial, the Trust will have the opportunity to demonstrate more concretely and comprehensively the economic impact that it fears, namely, the withdrawal of school districts with better claims experience and the resulting increased cost of health insurance coverage for the Trust's remaining members. Based on the present state of the record, however, we cannot conclude that the Trust is likely to succeed on the merits.