 |
Coons v. Geithner is a lawsuit filed on August 12, 2010, by the Goldwater Institute as a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act legislation passed in March 2010. The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2012.
| |
Coons v. Geithner is a lawsuit filed on August 12, 2010, by the Goldwater Institute as a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act legislation passed in March 2010. The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2012.
The suit aimed to prevent the bill from taking effect, and named as defendants four high-ranking officials within the federal government: President Barack Obama, then-Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and Attorney General Eric Holder. The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represented Tempe, Arizona, resident Nick Coons, thirty Arizona state lawmakers, and three then-Representatives from Arizona, Jeff Flake (now a Senator), Trent Franks, and John Shadegg (since retired). In justifying the need for such a lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute argued that the PPACA represents an expansion of federal power in medicine, the likes of which has not taken place since the creation of Medicaid and Medicare. [1]
The Goldwater Institute believed that this lawsuit distinguished itself from others filed across the country in that it united the most effective arguments from lawsuits already filed by the states of Virginia and Florida with further claims. According to the Goldwater Institute, these additional claims were "based on the separation of powers, the right to medical autonomy and privacy, and the First Amendment." The suit claimed that the lead plaintiff, Nick Coons of Tempe, would have his right to medical privacy violated by the legislation. The legislation would compel Coons to disclose medical records that could be accessed by the federal government without Coons's approval. [2] Additionally, in 2014, Coons would face fines if he did not purchase a federally approved health care plan. [3]
One specific target of the lawsuit was the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is a new agency created by the health care bill. According to the Goldwater Institute, the board "will be able to dictate how much doctors can charge for medical care, how insurance companies will pay for it, and when patients can get access to cutting-edge treatments." [1] Because these decisions cannot be reviewed by Congress nor the courts, the lawsuit claimed that the separation of powers doctrine is violated as a result of the health care legislation.
In addition, thirty Arizona lawmakers joined the suit because they believed the bill violates their First Amendment rights to cast votes for the benefit of their constituents. For example, in 2010, the Arizona Legislature sought to reduce the state's budget deficits by voting to reduce state funding for Medicaid. However, after the federal health care bill was passed, the Legislature had to restore all state funding for Medicaid or Arizona would have lost $7 billion in federal funding. [1]
By an opinion (No. 13-15324) issued on August 7, 2014, retitled as Coons v. Lew (Jacob Lew having replaced Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury), the 9th Circuit affirmed the bulk of the judgment, but vacated in part and remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss one count for lack of jurisdiction. [4] On March 30, 2015, the Supreme Court refused to review the opinion of the 9th Circuit. [5]
Initial suit
Appeal
The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the "Lincoln Law", is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal Government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the Government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.
The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to its website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."
Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the ability of a state agency to claim a personal injury settlement as compensation for Medicaid benefits provided for treatment of the injuries. The Court ruled unanimously that a federal statutory prohibition against liens on personal property to recover Medicaid expenditures applied to settlements, so that only the portion of the settlement that represented payment for past medical expenses could be claimed by the state.
Derek Larkin Schmidt is an American lawyer and politician who has been the Kansas Attorney General since 2011.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
Congress School District v. Warren was a court case that reached the Arizona Court of Appeals and was decided in 2011.
In 2008, Cindy Vong, a Gilbert, AZ salon owner, was forced to shut down her spa fish pedicure business after the Arizona Board of Cosmetology determined the practice was unsanitary. Garra rufa fish are tiny carp that nibble and remove dead skin from humans. Customers place their feet into the fish tank and the Garra rufa fish remove the calloused skin. The practice was incredibly popular in Asia, but it was less common across the United States. But officials pointed to the problems of spreading bacteria as evidence of its unsanitary nature. This is unlikely, as the fish are incapable of breaking a customer's skin and each customer's feet were checked for sores prior to the treatment. None of Vong's customers ever filed a complaint with her or to a state agency.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Andrew David Hurwitz is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.
David Yerushalmi is an American lawyer and political activist who is the driving counsel behind the anti-sharia movement in the United States. Along with Robert Muise, he is co-founder and senior counsel of the American Freedom Law Center. He is also general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., a national security think tank founded by Frank Gaffney.
Robert J. Muise is an American attorney who specializes in constitutional law litigation. Along with attorney David Yerushalmi, he is co-founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit law firm whose stated mission is "to fight for faith and freedom by advancing and defending America's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation through litigation, education, and public policy programs." Before launching AFLC, Muise was Senior Trial Counsel at the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian law firm founded by Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.
HealthCare.gov is a health insurance exchange website operated under the United States federal government under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which currently serves the residents of the U.S. states which have opted not to create their own state exchanges. The exchange facilitates the sale of private health insurance plans to residents of the United States and offers subsidies to those who earn between one and four times the federal poverty line, but not to those earning less than the federal poverty line. The website also assists those persons who are eligible to sign up for Medicaid, and has a separate marketplace for small businesses.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case.
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services was a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation as a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The plaintiffs claimed that the ACA's enactment violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The plaintiffs sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear an appeal.
California v. Texas (2021) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its passage. The case in California followed after the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.