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). 

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter