Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al., 651 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2011)

(in a 2-1 decision authored by Carter appointee, court upholds against a facial challenge the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision (i.e., the individual mandate) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; majority reasoned that provision within the authority of the Congress to enact under the Commerce Clause; court rejects government's position that provision is a tax that can be upheld under the taxing power of the Congress; court notes that nature of challenge by plaintiffs as a pre-enforcement facial challenge favors the government and is not the preferred route for litigation; court notes that opinion does not preclude future as-applied challenges to the mandate provision and that Act may, indeed, be eliminated by the Congress; dissent notes that mandate does not regulate commercial activity, but regulates the status of being uninsured; thus, since no market activity involved, the Congress has no ability under the Commerce Clause to regulate such inaction; dissent also points out that finding the mandate provision Constitutional removes all limits on the authority of the Congress under the Commerce Clause).