- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
Liberty U. asks justices to review health care ruling
Liberty University has asked the Supreme Court to hear its case against President Obama’s new health care law, after an appeals court ruled the university’s challenge premature.
Invoking the Anti-Injunction Act that bars lawsuits seeking to block collection of a tax, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond said the so-called “individual mandate” provision of the law requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty was effectively a tax and thus cannot be challenged prior to its effective date of January 2014.
The case of Liberty, the Lynchburg, Va.-based Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, challenged two mandates in the law that require individuals to buy health insurance and employers to offer it.
“The employer mandate and the Anti-Injunction Act is unique to Liberty University, and those two things need to be addressed,” said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University’s School of Law. He called the law, passed in 2010, “an unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s power to micromanage personal choices.”
The petition states: “Petitioners are not challenging the assessment or collection of the non-compliance penalties, which might never be assessed against them and, if they were, would not be assessed before April 15 2015. It is the mandates and, more particularly, Congress’ authority to enact such mandates that is at the heart of this case.”
The Obama administration — citing an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling out of Atlanta striking down the act’s individual mandate — announced last month it also would appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which is expected to take up the case during its 2011-12 term.
Florida and 25 other states, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, have asked the country's highest court to rule the entire law unconstitutional.
In addition to tossing Liberty’s case, the 4th Circuit panel also dismissed Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II’s challenge to the law on the grounds that the state lacked standing to sue. Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, has also appealed to the high court.
In contrast to other recent court rulings, the three-judge panel in the 4th Circuit in Richmond didn’t rule on the merits of the law. They instead took issue with the standing of the cases brought forth by Mr. Cuccinelli and Liberty University.
Mr. Cuccinelli, in addition to arguing against the individual mandate, has stressed that he is defending a state law passed in 2010 that states no Virginia resident can be required to purchase health insurance.
But the panel ruled Virginia lacked standing because the mandate applies only to individuals, not the state as a whole.
A Justice Department spokeswoman could not be reached for comment Monday.
Though both sides agree that the Supreme Court will take up the case, the question is how many of the more than 30 lawsuits filed challenging the law the justices will agree to hear.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the law in June, and that case has also been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Randy Barnett, an attorney representing the National Federation of Independent Business, said the Florida case also involves the issue of whether the mandate can be severed from the law without invalidating it entirely. It also challenges the notion that the expansion of Medicaid requirements constitutes an encroachment on the states.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Supreme Court weighs appeal to concealed-carry gun laws
- Michael Bloomberg charts $50M challenge to NRA: 'Got to make them afraid'
- McAuliffe's PAC off to fast start, with $254,000 raised in two weeks
- Virginia Republican Bob Marshall stands by remarks that raise eyebrows
- Obama urged to enforce ban on importing military-style firearms
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- Harry Reid blasts Bundy ranch supporters as 'domestic terrorists'
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.