New Jersey Physicians, Inc. v. President of the United States
653 F.3d 234
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Dr. Mario Criscito, Patient Roe, and New Jersey Physicians, Inc. (NJPI).
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing before addressing merits; no jurisdiction over claims challenging the Health Care Act.
- Act provisions at issue are the individual mandate (minimum essential coverage, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A) and the employer responsibility provision (26 U.S.C. § 4980H).
- Individually, plaintiffs allege only minimal, non-specific facts about health care provision and payment; no concrete current or imminent injury to any plaintiff shown.
- Plaintiffs seek to challenge the Health Care Act as exceeding Congress’s authority, but standing requires concrete injury, causation, and redressability; the court reviews dismissals de novo for standing.
- The Third Circuit affirms the district court, holding plaintiffs fail to plead injury in fact and thus lack standing to challenge the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue. | Criscito/Roe/NJPI allege injury in fact from Act. | Plaintiffs fail to show concrete, particularized, imminent injury. | No standing; injury in fact not pled. |
| Whether any plaintiff has associational standing for NJPI. | NJPI represents members/patients harmed by Act. | No identified member with concrete injury; associational standing lacking. | No associational standing for NJPI. |
| Whether the case is justiciable given Article III standing requirements. | Plaintiffs have standing under imminent injury theory. | Standing not adequately pleaded; jurisdiction lacking. | Case dismissed for lack of standing; no jurisdiction to reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes three elements of standing and injury in fact)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (imminence and likelihood of future injury required)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (standing requirements inform judicial power)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (imminence temporal considerations in standing analysis)
- Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2011) (predicate facts showing imminent injury may be insufficient)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (association standing requires identified members harmed)
- Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 1999) (precludes standing without cognizable injury)
- Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for pleading and reviewing standing on record)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (standing and jurisdictional principles in adjudication)