Thomas More Law Center v. Obama
651 F.3d 529
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- This case is an appeal from a district court ruling that the ACA's minimum coverage provision (26 U.S.C. § 5000A) is constitutional.
- Plaintiffs include Thomas More Law Center and four individuals who claim the mandate unconstitutionally compels purchase of health insurance.
- The district court held the provision within Congress's Commerce Clause power and did not address whether it is a valid tax under the General Welfare Clause.
- The court recognized standing and ripeness challenges, concluding pre-enforcement facial challenges were appropriate.
- Oral argument occurred in 2011; the panel comprises Circuit Judges Martin, Sutton, and Graham, with Graham concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the minimum coverage provision fall within the Commerce Clause? | Ceci and others contend self-insurance/inactivity fall outside commerce. | Government asserts regulation of activity (self-insurance) substantially affects interstate commerce. | Yes; provision is within Commerce Clause as it regulates activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce. |
| Do Plaintiffs have standing to challenge pre-enforcement? | Plaintiffs show actual and imminent injury from anticipated mandate. | Standing is lacking because injury is contingent on future events. | Plaintiffs have standing; injury is present and imminent. |
| Is the Anti-Injunction Act jurisdictional bar applicable to pre-enforcement challenge? | Act does not bar jurisdiction; penalty is not a tax in this context. | Penalty may be treated as tax in some contexts; AIA may limit review. | AIA does not bar jurisdiction here; pre-enforcement challenge permitted. |
| Is the mandate a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Power under Lopez, Morrison, and Raich? | The activity/inactivity dichotomy prohibits regulating those not in the market; overbroad. | Economically rational basis supports regulation; essential to broader regulatory scheme. | Yes; regulation of self-insuring is permissible under the substantial-effects/essential to broader scheme doctrine. |
| Could the mandate also be sustained under the taxing power, and is such analysis necessary? | If viewed as a tax, the mandate would be invalid as beyond taxing power. | The measure is a penalty, not a tax; the taxing power not necessary to sustain it. | The court did not base its decision on the taxing power; Commerce Clause justification suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raich v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (upholds federal regulation of intrastate activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce; Raich informs aggregation/necessity theory)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1995) (sets limits on Commerce Power; channels, instrumentalities, and activities with substantial effects test)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2000) (limits on regulating noneconomic activity under Commerce Clause)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1942) (broadly upholds aggregation doctrine and reach of Commerce Power)
- United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1944) (insurance commerce subject to federal regulation; foundational to ACA premise)