Baldwin v. Sebelius
654 F.3d 877
9th Cir.2011Background
- Baldwin and the Pacific Justice Institute challenge the ACA individual mandate as to constitutionality and standing.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; Baldwin and the Institute sought review of the injunction denial as well.
- The notice of appeal was filed before final judgment, triggering a jurisdictional discussion under WMX Techs.
- The court determines standing is lacking for Baldwin: no current or imminent injury and no pre-enforcement threat established.
- The Institute likewise lacks standing: the mandate does not apply to employers and it failed to plead over 50 employees or associational standing.
- The court affirms the district court's rulings and dismisses the challenges for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Baldwin have standing to challenge the mandate? | Baldwin asserts injury from mandated insurance. | No injury in fact; no current or imminent noncompliance. | No standing; injury in fact not shown. |
| Does Pacific Justice Institute have standing to challenge the mandate or related employer provisions? | Institute objects to mandate and shared responsibility. | Mandate does not apply to the Institute; no 50+ employees for the shared provision. | No standing; not subject to mandate or the employer provision. |
| Is there a viable pre-enforcement challenge given lack of imminent prosecution? | There is a concrete plan for compliance and ongoing steps; injury imminent. | No genuine threat of imminent prosecution; generalized grievance. | Not justiciable; no imminent threat. |
| Does the Institute have associational standing? | Association stands to challenge on behalf of members. | No member standing shown; challenge raised too late. | No associational standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact requires concrete, particularized, imminent harm)
- Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2011) (pre-enforcement standing requires concrete plan and imminent risk)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (genuine threat of prosecution required for pre-enforcement challenges)
- WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (timing of notice of appeal after amending order affects jurisdiction)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 U.S. 430 (1932) (jurisdictional rule for appeals when final judgment not yet entered)