New Jersey Physicians, Inc. v. Obama, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129445

This is a pre-enforcement challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act brought by NJP, Dr. Criscito, and Roe in the SDWMDJ, challenging the Act as beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause powers and violating the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs allege the Act creates mandatory minimum essential coverage and related penalties that burden their rights and impose costs on patients and small employers.
The Act was enacted March 23, 2010, with sections cited to 2010 statutes; Roe is an uninsured individual, Criscito a physician member of NJP, and Roe a patient.
Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on standing and failure to state a claim; court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, 2202.
The court analyzes standing at the pre-enforcement stage, focusing on injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, applying Third Circuit and Supreme Court standards.
The court grants the motion, concluding plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Act, leading to dismissal of the claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Roe have standing to challenge the Act?	Roe argues present or imminent injury due to lack of insurance and penalties.	Act’s enforcement would impose injury only in the future, not imminent.	No standing; injuries are speculative and not certainly impending.
Does Criscito have standing as an individual physician?	Criscito will be affected by the Act’s regulatory/tax burdens on small employers.	Act does not bar direct payments or prescribe treatment modes; standing lacks specificity and staffing thresholds.	No standing; insufficient allegations of fifty or more employees or concrete burdens.
Can NJP sue on behalf of its members where member standing is lacking?	NJP may vindicate rights of its members, including Criscito.	If individual members lack standing, association lacks standing to sue.	NJP lacks standing because Criscito, the only member, has no standing.
Are pre-enforcement challenges to federal healthcare reform subject to standing rules?	Courts have allowed pre-enforcement challenges in similar contexts.	The injuries alleged here are too speculative and not immediate.	Pre-enforcement standing denied; distinctions from other cases cited.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three standing elements; injury-in-fact must be concrete and imminent)
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (threatened injury must be certainly impending)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (present and real injury required for standing; emphasis on immediacy)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (sovereign standing; special facts about state interests)
Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (standing in a broad statutory challenge; distinguishable facts)
Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (pre-enforcement standing in ACA challenges; distinguishes present injury)
Florida v. HHS, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (standing where plaintiffs alleged present economic harm)
Commonwealth ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 702 F. Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Va. 2010) (sovereign standing where state injuries are present)
Pierce v. Sis, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (reiterated for immediacy and injury sufficiency)