Goudy-Bachman v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
764 F. Supp. 2d 684
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to reform health care and reduce uninsured costs, including the individual mandate §1501 requiring minimum essential coverage by 2014.
- Plaintiffs Bachman challenge the constitutionality of §1501 as an unconstitutional use of Congress's Commerce Clause power.
- Bachmans are self-employed PA residents currently uninsured and claim no Medicaid/Medicare eligibility or applicable exemptions.
- Bachmans allege present economic and non-economic injuries stemming from the mandate's anticipated effects on their finances and purchase power.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of standing, ripeness, and that AIA bars pre-enforcement challenge.
- The court will decide subject-matter jurisdiction (standing and ripeness) first; Rule 12(b)(6) issues will be addressed in a separate opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Bachmans have standing to challenge §1501? | Bachmans suffer imminent economic injury and loss of purchase power. | No injury-in-fact; the mandate affects them only in 2014 and is too speculative. | Yes, Bachmans have standing. |
| Is the challenge ripe for judicial review? | Pre-enforcement threat is concrete due to imminent budgetary impact. | Ripeness requires imminent, not speculative, harm. | Yes, dispute is ripe for adjudication. |
| Does Anti-Injunction Act bar pre-enforcement challenge? | AIA does not apply because Bachmans challenge the mandate to purchase insurance, not the tax collection. | AIA bars suits that would restrain tax assessment/collection. | AIA does not bar; mandate is not a tax. |
| Is there jurisdiction despite potential dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6)? | Jurisdiction exists under 12(b)(1) for standing and ripeness; separate ruling on 12(b)(6) to follow. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing and injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. American United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (core standing principles; general grievances insufficient)
- Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania, 558 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2009) (standing and prudential considerations in state action)
- Reg'l Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102 (1974) (ripeness and jurisdiction considerations in pre-enforcement actions)
- Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness doctrine in administrative-actor challenges)
- Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (pre-enforcement challenges can be ripe where immediate effects exist)
- Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 716 F.Supp.2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (pre-enforcement challenges viability; health care mandate context)
- Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner, 753 F.Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010) (pre-enforcement standing and imminent impact)
- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (standing and injury under challenge to regulation)
- United States v. LaFranca, 282 U.S. 568 (1931) (tax vs. penalty distinction)