Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource." 
Email: Password:

  Interesting development in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama [U.S. Sixth Circuit]
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Issue 
ContributorBrandonius Maximus 
Last EditedBrandonius Maximus  May 17, 2011 12:54pm
Logged 0
CategoryBlog Entry
AuthorBrad Joondeph
News DateMonday, May 16, 2011 06:00:00 PM UTC0:0
DescriptionThere has been a rather interesting development in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the case originating in the Eastern District of Michigan that will be argued before the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday, June 1. On Thursday afternoon, the clerk of the court sent the following letter to the parties' attorneys:

Dear Counsel:
I write at the direction of the panel to which the appeal noted above is to be argued on Wednesday afternoon, June 1, 2011. The court asks that you submit letter briefs of not more than ten pages, addressing the following questions:
1. Standing/Ripeness.
a. Have the plaintiffs alleged an injury in fact? If not, have they alleged an “imminent injury” creating a case of actual controversy under Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act, even though they filed their complaint more than three years before the effective date of the challenged provisions?
b. If the plaintiffs do not purchase minimum essential coverage and do not pay the penalty, what available enforcement mechanisms are available to the IRS? What role, if any, do IRS enforcement mechanisms play in the injury and hardship requirements?
2. Facial/As-applied.
Is the Commerce Clause challenge a facial challenge and, if so, must the plaintiffs prove “that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)?
Your letter briefs are to be filed not later than May 23, 2011. Thanking you for your attention to this request, I am
Very truly yours,
Leonard Green, Clerk

What to make of this? First, it appears that the panel has some qualms about standing--particularly, as to whether the current injury (such as having to set aside funds for the future purchase of health insurance) is sufficiently "concrete and particularized," or that, if the injury is having to purchase health insurance in the future, it is at least "imminent." Part of the complication, it appears, is that there may be no guarantee
Share
ArticleRead Full Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION