NOVEMBER 28, 2012
Supreme Court Orders Appeals Court to Hear Liberty University Health Care Lawsuit
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in granting a petition for rehearing in Liberty University v. Geitner, vacated the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court’s prior dismissal of Liberty University’s challenge to Obamacare and directed the Fourth Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NFIB v. Sebelius.
In essence, the Fourth Circuit held that Liberty’s challenge was premature because the tax in question had not taken effect and that Liberty could not assert its claims until that happened. The Supreme Court rejected this rationale in the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) case, holding that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (contrary to what the Fourth Circuit had held) but that it could be considered a tax for purposes of determining whether Congress’s power had properly exercised its authority under the Constitution.
Having rejected the Fourth Circuit’s reason for not ruling on the merits, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit so that it could take whatever action is appropriate in light of the NFIB decision. This is something that the Supreme Court does routinely whenever it issues a decision that could affect the analysis of a previously issued lower court decision, and this action should not be taken as a sign that the Supreme Court is reconsidering the merits of the claims it addressed in NFIB.
Thus, on Liberty’s claims that were like those heard last spring, the Fourth Circuit would be bound by the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss them on the merits. However, Liberty brought other claims that have not yet been heard by the Supreme Court, including that the individual mandate and the employer mandate violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Others are also challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ anti-conscience mandate in dozens of lawsuits that are now pending in courts throughout the country; see our recent Heritage Legal Memorandum. These claims that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed are alive and well. Furthermore, the lower courts do not have to wait for the tax to take effect before considering the merits of those challenges.
These issues will ultimately wend their way through the courts back up to the Supreme Court for its consideration.
What are your thoughts on the new health care law? Join the open discussion on our blog >>
 |
|
 | | | |  |
Okla. School Districts v. Henry's Kids Program:
The Religious Liberty & Special-Needs Case
Last Tuesday, Oklahoma’s special-needs students received a pre-Thanksgiving win. The state’s Supreme Court ruled that two school districts that had challenged the legality of the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program—a voucher program for special-needs students—were out of line in bringing the lawsuit.
Read the rest of the story >> |
| | | |
|  | The Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy organization. Heritage created the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy. |
|
The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400 | heritage.org
|
No comments:
Post a Comment