Hah: Blog Cited as Essential Reference in NEJM
This week’s NEJM provides a useful barometer article, including a neato graphic timeline, on the litigation status of [PP]ACA (“Not So Fast—Jusisdictional Barriers to the ACA Litigation“). Thanks, Mssrs Jost and Hall.
Their salient points:
- So far, ~30 lawsuits have been filed against the ACA.
- A Supremes‘ decision in June 2012 is likely, given the admin’s petition for their review on September 28.
- The jurisdictional issues generally, which are somewhat intertwined, rest on one of the following:
- Whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when imposing the individual mandate to purchase insurance.
- Whether state or individual plaintiffs have standing when challenging the ACA—particularly, in the latter case, before the “meat” of the ACA (eg, the individual mandate) goes into effect in 2014.
- Whether grievances are sufficiently ripe—meaning whether cases have been filed prematurely (before the “meat” of the ACA goes into effect in 2014).
- Whether the fine for not purchasing insurance is a penalty or tax or something else altogether (eg, an “exaction”*) and whether the label really makes any difference (the answer: it seems to; in fact, maybe big time).
My favorite part of the article, however, is the reference for the table outlining the status of 6 ACA cases.** It is the ACA Litigation Blog (a blog!), evidently run by Santa Clara law professor Brad Joondeph. Har-dee-har-har, NEJM.
ACA = Affordable Care Act.
* Haven’t heard that one yet.
** For scorekeepers: 1, it’s constitutional; 1, it’s unconstitutional; 4, no jurisdiction; 1, decision pending.