|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
N.H. [Supreme Court] nixes anti-healthcare reform legislation
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | Brandonius Maximus |
| Last Edited | Brandonius Maximus Jun 23, 2011 12:03pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Legal Ruling |
| News Date | Friday, June 17, 2011 06:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The New Hampshire Supreme Court has branded House Bill 89, an act requiring state Attorney General Michael Delaney to join State of Florida et al v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA), unconstitutional.
“We conclude that HB 89, which removes entirely from the executive branch the decision as to whether to join the state as a party to litigation, would usurp the executive branch’s power to execute and enforce the law,” wrote the judges in a slip opinion dated June 15.
The justices of the state supreme court were requested to give their opinions on the requirement in HB 89 that the attorney general move to have the state of New Hampshire join the Florida lawsuit, which includes 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA, which requires individuals to have health insurance coverage.
The bill was filed in the state supreme court May 5 and would have required Delaney to join the Florida lawsuit “no later than July 1.”
According to the judges, at issue is whether directing the attorney general to initiate a specific lawsuit would usurp an essential power of the executive branch. “It is the executive, not the legislative branch, in which the constitution vests the ‘supreme executive’ authority to determine whether it is in the public interest to litigate a particular matter. Necessarily, this includes the decision not to initiate a specific civil action on the part of the state,” the judges wrote. “The executive branch alone has the power to decide the state’s interest in litigation. If enacted, HB 89’s usurpation of an exclusively executive function would violate the separation of powers doctrine.” |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
