Health & Welfare Plans Newsletter

BULLETIN
December 18, 2019

BenefitsLink.com logo
EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com logo
Search   ·   Past Issues   ·   Get Message Boards Digest   ·   Get Retirement News
 

Fifth Circuit Opinion: ACA Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional; Remanding to District Court as to Severability (PDF)

98 pages. "First, there is a live case or controversy because the intervenor-defendant states have standing to appeal and, even if they did not, there remains a live case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the federal defendants. Second, the plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring this challenge to the ACA; the individual mandate injures both the individual plaintiffs, by requiring them to buy insurance that they do not want, and the state plaintiffs, by increasing their costs of complying with the reporting requirements that accompany the individual mandate. Third, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. Fourth, on the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist....

"We [direct] the district court to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.... It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded. It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not. But it is no small thing for unelected, life-tenured judges to declare duly enacted legislation passed by the elected representatives of the American people unconstitutional. The rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it exists today....

"Remand is appropriate in this case for a second reason: so that the district court may consider the federal defendants' new arguments as to the proper scope of relief in this case. The relief the plaintiffs sought in the district court was a universal nationwide injunction ... Now [the defendants] have changed their litigation position to argue that relief in this case should be tailored to enjoin enforcement of the ACA in only the plaintiff states -- and not just that, but that the declaratory judgment should only reach ACA provisions that injure the plaintiffs."

[Texas v. U.S., No. 19-10011 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

BenefitsLink.com, Inc.
1298 Minnesota Avenue, Suite H
Winter Park, Florida 32789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher
Holly Horton, Business Manager

Article submission: Online form

BenefitsLink Health & Welfare Plans Newsletter, ISSN no. 1536-9595. Copyright 2019 BenefitsLink.com, Inc. All materials contained in this newsletter are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of BenefitsLink.com, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than BenefitsLink.com and EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe  |   Change Email Address  |   Privacy Policy