Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

Last updated
Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Seal.svg
No. 13-5202
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameMatt Sissel, Appellant v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
ArguedMay 8, 2014
DecidedJuly 29, 2014
Citation(s)760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
Case history
Prior action(s)Petitioner's claim dismissed, 951 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C. 2013)
Subsequent action(s)Rehearing en banc denied (D.C. Cir. August 7, 2015).
Case opinions
Rogers
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Judith W. Rogers,
Nina Pillard,
Robert L. Wilkins
Keywords
Origination Clause, Affordable Care Act

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.

Contents

Background of the case

The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the ACA was unconstitutional, even in light of the "saving construction" given the law in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius . on the ground that the enactment of the essential coverage mandate violated the Origination Clause. [1] [2] The suit also sought clarification from the District Court as to what extent lower courts were legally bound by the conclusion of Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenting justices that the Act did not pass constitutional scrutiny by way of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. [1]

District court

On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, (2) that the Origination Clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the Origination Clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the House of Representatives. [3]

Court of appeals ruling

On July 29, 2014, the district court's decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [4] The Court of Appeals concluded that section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code (sometimes called the "individual mandate") was not a "Bill for raising Revenue" and thus was not subject to the restriction in the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals stated that it was therefore unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the bill originated in the House of Representatives. The Court also rejected Sissel's contention that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2012 in the case of NFIB v. Sebelius "necessarily disposes of Sissel's Commerce Clause claim." [5]

Subsequent actions

Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. In August 2015, the petition was denied. Four judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The judges wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing and on the merits of Sissel's claim. They agreed with the three-judge panel's rejection of the petitioner's claim, but offered a different rationale. [6]

On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating states rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is an association of small businesses in the United States. It is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, with offices in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state capitals. The goal of NFIB is to advance the interests of small businesses.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, currently codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7421, is a United States federal law originally enacted in 1867. The statute provides that with 14 specified exceptions, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed".

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court. The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Matheson Jr.</span> American judge

Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.

The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as in the case of other bills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

An individual mandate is a requirement by law for certain persons to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

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), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's 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.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

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.

United States House of Representatives v. Azar, et al. was a lawsuit in which the United States House of Representatives sued departments and officials within the executive branch, asserting that President Barack Obama acted illegally in his implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was touted by House Speaker John Boehner, and asserted that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in delaying the implementation of the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act and also addressed "Republican opposition to an estimated $175 billion in payments to insurance companies over the next 10 years as part of a cost-sharing program under the healthcare law."

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 was a health care reform bill introduced into the United States Senate on November 22, 1993 by John Chafee, a Republican senator from Rhode Island, and Chair of the Republican Health Task Force. It was co-sponsored by eighteen other Republican senators, including then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, and two Democratic Senators, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and David Boren of Oklahoma. It was read twice in the Senate, but was neither debated nor voted upon. Many of the ideas in the bill were originally proposed by Stuart Butler in 1989, when he worked at the Heritage Foundation, however, some conservatives believed that it was too liberal. It was introduced as an alternative to legislation unveiled earlier that year by then-President Bill Clinton. As a bipartisan bill, it was one of a few comprehensive health care reform bills not to be introduced along party lines.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (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 enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment 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.

References

  1. 1 2 "PLF takes the next step in challenging Obamacare". Pacific Liberty Blog. Pacific Legal Foundation. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  2. Ellis, Ashton (20 September 2012). "If ObamaCare Is a Tax, Did It Violate the Origination Clause?". Center for Individual Freedom. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
  3. Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 951F. Supp. 2d159 (D.D.C.2013).
  4. Zajac, Andrew (July 29, 2014). "Obamacare Challenge Over Origins of Law Tossed by U.S." Bloomberg News.
  5. Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 760F.3d1 (D.C Cir.2014).
  6. "No. 13-5202" (PDF). www.scotusblog.com. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2015-08-17.
  7. "Order List" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. 2016-01-19.