Analysis of a Healthcare Lawsuit Case

Abstract

The plaintiffs are the members of the Association of the U.S. Citizens that consists of C. Barr, J. Grapek, and E. Dannemann. The lawsuit provided to begin a trial against Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelious, Timothy Geithner, and E. Holder. Moreover, the plaint was filed against the state.

 

So, what had happened? The plaintiffs thought that the defendants’ issued legal act was not constitutional and that defendants were abusing their powers. Plaintiffs considered that common human rights were violated and the following parts of the US Constitution were broken:

  1. Article 1 of the USC.
  2. Amendment 1 to the USC.
  3. Amendment 5 to the USC.
  4. Amendments 3 and 4 to the USC.

The plaintiffs hold that the federal government had no legal authority to compel citizens of the United States of America to purchase any product or make any product or service a condition to living (United States District Court, 2010).

The plaintiffs request that Court declares the PPACA unconstitutional under all amendments and articles of the Constitution and ask to enjoin Defendants.

Plaintiff USCA is a non-profit organization, which consists of 23,000 members. This organization considers providing protection of the rights and liberties of all US citizens.

The USCA wants instant litigation and trial against the federal government. Plaintiffs are the members of this organization and they do not have any wish to acquire health care insurance.

The defendants are the state workers. They are the President of the United States, Barack Obama, the Secretary of the Health Department of Health, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department, Timothy Geithner. Every one of them is responsible for implementing the laws and enforcing them. According to the plaintiffs, the sued legal act is breaking the Commerce clause, the plaintiffs’ freedom of expression and intimate association, the Fifth Amendment due to the process clause, and the right to privacy (United States District Court, 2010).

Try VIP services or become a VIP client, benefit from the exclusive opportunity at a very reasonable price. Limited time offer - order a zingy VIP package with a 30% discount online!

The Issue of the Case

In the plaintiffs’ mind, the federal government exceeded the limit of their powers and issued an unconstitutional act. The issue of the legal case is that the plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that PPACA is invalid. The plaintiff requests that the act was not legally enforceable. There was a specific legal question that rose from the case. That question doubted the constitutionality of the PPACA. The problem that the Court had to solve was whether the amendments were broken and violated (United States District Court, 2010).

Other issues the judge faced were whether the PPACA was consistent with the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections of free association and whether the PPACA was a proper exercise of the power of Congress. Another issue that can be outlined is whether the sued legal act is coherent with the Amendments that are bound with purchase rights and freedoms. What is interesting, this act does not require the US citizens to open the information that they do not want to be revealed, as it was stated in the lawsuit case (Santa Clara Law Digital Commons, 2011).

Holding

The Court that was solving the litigation of USCA and the Defendants considered giving to the motion of defendants to dismiss the second amended complaint. It dismissed on all counts except Count 1. What is more, another case identical to this one was available on the same grounds, and it involved the same matters and the outcome of that case would tell the result of the U.S. Citizens Association v. Obama case.

The plaintiffs were unsatisfied with these events. They thought that there would be prejudice with regard to plaintiffs, and while solving of Thomas More’s case there would be a delay in case appealing because of dismissal of Counts 2, 3, and 4. The Court dismissed 3 out of 4 plaintiff’s complaints and that decision will not be appealed until the Court decides the motions of the parties for summary judgment (Santa Clara Law Digital Commons, 2011).

A stay had been imposed for the purpose of extending the time needed to resolve this case. After hearing both parties’ facts and arguments, the Court would consider and conclude that the truth, in this case, is on the side of the plaintiffs, and the case is on the way of instant resolution. Now, the Court discovers its possibility to deny a motion of defendants to stay. Both parties were informed that the Court can be considered and decided as a matter of law. There would be motions for summary judgment.

Get 24/7 Free consulting
Order now

The Reason of the Lawsuit

There are several reasons why the court made its verdict in such a way. The first one was the lack of plaintiffs’ standing. The jurisdiction of that Court was not appropriate because for suing in that Court the plaintiff must have an appropriate standing. The standing requires injury-in-fact. Moreover, the matter was that there were no injuries and it was doubted whether they would be when the PPACA would be enacted. The injury cannot be predicted now, as well as it cannot be seen now (Unites States District Court, 2010).

The court decision was built on several similar cases such as the case of Abbott Labs v. Gardner.

In addition, the Court gives its reasons from McConnell, 540 U.S. where it states if plaintiffs’ current moves lead to an injury, these steps are not obviously traceable to the ACA.

Client's Review

"I have to say that when I first heard about this company I was like "are they for real". I get in touch with them when I needed to write an essay. Here's the thing, I would usually write it by myself but this time I actually needed help. I was desperate and the deadline was imminent. The result was amazing."

reviewed Exclusive-Paper.com on December 13, 2017, via SiteJabberClick to see the original review on an external website.

Additionally, the Court gives an explanation that if the plaintiff’s preparation for 2014 would compose an injury, it usually happens not because of the challenged statute, but because of the claimant’s wish.

Moreover, claimants state that the federal government abused its powers given in Article 1 of the USC enacting the minimum coverage provision. To insist on this claim, plaintiffs should give evidence or “plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds” (Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 2005). The Court thought that the plaintiff couldn’t show such arguments and considered that Congress was acting in the Constitution bounds.

Congress found out the provisions that were needed for procuring efficiency of the broader regulation of interstate insurance activity. It is well-known that commerce authorities that allow Congress to enact the regulations are part of the vast interstate market regulation. If the minimum coverage provision would be considered as isolated, it would still affect interstate commerce (Unites States District Court, 2010).

The Court thought that the coverage provision worked as a tax and would be the actual activity of Congress within the General Welfare Clause.

The Coverage Provision Does Not Violate Plaintiffs’ Right of Expressive Association

Efforts of the complaints to save their claims regarding the First Amendment are useless. They state that coverage provision infringes the First Amendment because plaintiffs are forced to be the members of certain insurance groups that they do not want to. Additionally, how defendants had shown, that Amendment would be implicated if any member of the association would have had limited ability to express anything. (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984)). As could be understood, the coverage provision was not affecting any expressive ability of the members (Unites States District Court, 2010).

Another reason why the claim of plaintiffs was criticized is the fact that the Court, where the claim was directed lacks the authority to lead the case. The Court explains that reason. Plaintiffs think that in that situation they would be subjects to “tax penalty”. ACA implies that they may face such issues, but do not comply with the minimum coverage provision.

The plaintiffs claim that the AIA act intends to fine people not with the ‘tax’, but with ‘penalty’. The plaintiffs thought that it would be appropriate to rely upon Florida’s Court decision. That Court found out that the Federal Government did not intend to apply its power to fine with a tax. The Federal Government enacted the minimum coverage provided that the right to establish the taxes was instead an invention of lawyers of the Government after the Act was passed. Additionally, the leaders of Congress on several occasions stated the provision is an instrument of the taxing power, as well as an application of the power on commerce (Unites States District Court, 2010).

Affordable Legal Case Brief Writing Services

Our Benefits
  • 300 words/page
  • Papers written from scratch
  • Relevant and up-to-date sources
  • Fully referenced materials
  • Attractive discount system
  • Strict confidentiality
  • 24/7 customer support
We Offer for Free
  • Free Title page
  • Free Bibliography list
  • Free Revision (within two days)
  • Free Prompt delivery
  • Free Plagiarism report (on request)
Order now
scroll to top call us
live-chat-button
Chat with Support