Calvey v. Obama
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64189
W.D. Okla.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the ACA’s minimum coverage provision on multiple constitutional grounds.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing and ripeness; Plaintiffs seek to amend to proposed Second Amended Complaint.
- Three plaintiffs are uninsured and allege future injury from mandatory insurance; six plaintiffs are insured and allege present/ongoing preparatory conduct.
- Court analyzes standing, redressability, and injury-in-fact for each plaintiff and each claim (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh) under Article III.
- The court grants in part the amendment, grants in part the motion to dismiss for lack of standing/ripe claims, and denies the uninsured plaintiffs’ standing as to certain claims while preserving others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for First, Second, Third, Sixth Claims | Uninsured and insured allege future/present injuries from ACA. | Insured lack standing; uninsured lack concrete injury until 2014; injuries speculative. | Uninsured have standing; insured lack standing for these claims. |
| Standing for Equal Protection (Fifth Claim) | ACA creates unlawful earmarks, exemptions, and preferences; discriminatory enforcement harms plaintiffs. | Plaintiffs fail to identify specific provisions or concrete injury; speculative. | Fifth Claim dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Standing for Fourth Amendment Privacy (Seventh Claim) | ACA requires private medical information; violates Fourth Amendment. | No ACA provision identified mandating disclosure; injury speculative. | Seventh Claim dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Standing for Free Exercise (Fourth Claim) | ACA funds abortion; violates Free Exercise. | No provision requiring abortion funding or coverage; non-justiciable injury. | Fourth Claim dismissed as confessed and granted. |
| Ripeness | ACA imminently affects day-to-day business; pre-enforcement review appropriate. | No concrete injury; no direct day-to-day effect on plaintiffs. | Uninsured claims ripe; insured claims not ripe; remaining claims dismissed for lack of standing and ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three-part standing test; injury, causation, redressability)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1990) (injury must be concrete and particularized, not speculative)
- Nova Health Systems v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (threatened injury must be certainly impending)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (injury must be a realistic danger pegged to a fixed time)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Mead v. Holder, 766 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2011) (pre-enforcement standing analysis in ACA context)
- Florida ex rel. McCollum v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (pre-enforcement challenges to ACA standing framework)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing framework applied to ACA challenges)
- San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 926 F. Supp. 1415 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (injury not fairly traceable to challenged action when caused by independent third parties)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (ripeness doctrine factors)