Post a Job

Featured Jobs

Senior Retirement Plan Administrator

Daybright Financial
(Remote)

Daybright Financial logo

Enrolled Actuary

DWC (The 401k Experts)
(Remote)

DWC (The 401k Experts) logo

Senior 401k Plan Administrator

FMI Retirement Services
(Remote / Huntington NY)

FMI Retirement Services logo

Director of Benefits

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff
(Cleveland OH / Hybrid)

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff logo

Pension Administrator

PPS Pension Services
(Remote / Williamsville NY / Hybrid)

PPS Pension Services logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

The Pension Design Group
(Remote / Columbus OH / Hybrid)

The Pension Design Group logo

Senior ERISA Compliance Analyst

Employee Fiduciary LLC
(Remote / Mobile AL)

Employee Fiduciary LLC logo

ERISA Compliance Analyst

Employee Fiduciary LLC
(Remote / Mobile AL)

Employee Fiduciary LLC logo

3(16) Plan Customer Liaison, Enrollments

Compass
(Remote / Stratham NH / Hybrid)

Compass logo

Actuary Analyst

ERISA Services Inc.
(Remote)

ERISA Services Inc. logo

Benefits Manager

Hilldrup.com
(Stafford VA / Hybrid)

Hilldrup.com logo

Retirement Plan Sales Consultant

Leading Retirement Solutions
(Remote)

Leading Retirement Solutions logo

Benefits Manager

LucidHealth
(Remote)

LucidHealth logo

View More Employee Benefits Jobs

Free Publications

LinkedIn icon     Twitter icon     Facebook icon

Guest Article

Deloitte logo

(From the June 13, 2011 issue of Deloitte's Washington Bulletin, a periodic update of legal and regulatory developments relating to Employee Benefits.)

Cases Challenging the Validity of the PPACA Move Forward


The U.S. Courts of Appeal have heard oral arguments in four of the five key cases that are now before them to challenge the validity of the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The central issue in these cases is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage. After the Courts of Appeal weigh in on the issue, it may be headed to the Supreme Court for final resolution. Generally, the Supreme Court can accept review of a case if there is a conflict among the Courts of Appeal, if a state court of last resort decided an important Federal question in a way that conflicts with another such state court, or if a Court of Appeal or state court decided an important question of Federal law that conflicts with a decision of (or should be decided by) the Supreme Court.

It is possible that decisions will issue from the Courts of Appeal quickly enough for the Supreme Court to have the opportunity to review the issue during its upcoming 2011–2012 term (i.e., the term beginning in October 2011).

Case
District Court Holding
Status of Appeal
Oral Argument
Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (E.D. Mich.) Defendant's motion to dismiss granted (October 7, 2010) On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—Oral arguments were heard on June 1. A recording of the argument was posted by the court.
Liberty University Inc. v. Geithner (W.D. Va.) Defendant's motion to dismiss granted (November 30, 2010) On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—Oral arguments were heard on May 10. A recording of the argument was posted by the court.
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius (E.D. Va.) Individual mandate is unconstitutional (December 13, 2010) On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—Oral arguments were heard on May 10. A recording of the argument was posted by the court.
State of Florida v. Sebelius (N.D. Fl.) PPACA is unconstitutional (January 31, 2011) On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit—Oral arguments were heard on June 8. PACER account holders can access a recording of the argument at the court website.
Mead v. Holder (D.C.) Individual mandate is constitutional and does not violate Religious Freedom Restoration Act On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—Oral arguments are scheduled for September 23.  

Deloitte logoThe information in this Washington Bulletin is general in nature only and not intended to provide advice or guidance for specific situations.

If you have any questions or need additional information about articles appearing in this or previous versions of Washington Bulletin, please contact:

Robert Davis 202.879.3094, Elizabeth Drigotas 202.879.4985, Mary Jones 202.378.5067, Stephen LaGarde 202.879-5608, Erinn Madden 202.220.2692, Bart Massey 202.220.2104, Tom Pevarnik 202.879.5314, Sandra Rolitsky 202.220.2025, Deborah Walker 202.879.4955.

Copyright 2011, Deloitte.


BenefitsLink is an independent national employee benefits information provider, not formally affiliated with the firms and companies who kindly provide much of the content and advertisements published on this Web site, including the article shown above.