INFOhio: Difference between revisions

27,703 bytes added ,  3 years ago
→‎External links: Added History~~~~
(→‎External links: Added History~~~~)
 
Since 1994, INFOhio has automated more than 2,343 school libraries serving than 1.1 million students.
 
== Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ==
 
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation The information below tries to describe the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status. There have been over 100 lawsuits filed against [[Obamacare]], but that information is being actively censored {see [[Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA]])because it is failing.<ref>http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contraceptive_coverage_litigation_status_8-4-15_final.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2016/05/30/obamacare-is-failing-on-purpose/#75f9409c3edd</ref><ref>http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-is-failing-exactly-the-way-critics-said-it-would/</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/obamacare_is_failing_from_behind.html</ref><ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4c71852b-67d6-3058-ba85-0c9a3fedd7dc/ss_latest-bailout-for-big.html</ref><ref>http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/</ref>
 
=== May 17, 2016 ===
On May 17, 2016, (1:16-cv-00587) United States Court of Federal Claims District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [N] [[Highmark]] Inc., First Priority Life Insurance Company et al v. United States The case challenges if Obama can decline to pay via the Health Insurance Risk Corridors programs in violation of [[Tucker Act]] 223 million dollars.<ref>http://www.post-gazette.com/business/healthcare- business/2016/05/17/Highmark-takes-government-to-court-over-Obamacare-losses/stories/201605170204</ref><ref>http://www.wsj.com/articles/insurer-highmark-sues-u-s-over-affordable-care-act-1463515485</ref><ref name="pacer.gov"/>
 
=== October 22, 2015 ===
On October 22, 2015, (7:15-cv-00151) United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Constitutional Challenge [Y] [[Texas]], [[Kansas]]and the State of [[Loisiana]]. v. [[US Department of Health and Human Services]] (HHS), [[Sylvia Mathews Burwell|Burwell]] et al. The case challenges if the federal government can tax States via the Health Insurance Providers Fee programs in violation of the federal medicaid law.<ref>https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Affordable_Care_Act_Medicaid_Tax_Complaint.pdf</ref>.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/three-states-sue-federal-govt-over-unconstitutional-obamacare-tax</ref>
 
=== April 28, 2015 ===
On April 28, 2015, (3:15-cv-00193-RS-CJK) United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Constitutional Challenge [N] [[Rick Scott]] and the State of Florida. et al v. [[US Department of Health and Human Services]] (HHS), [[Sylvia Mathews Burwell|Burwell]] et al. The case challenges if the federal government can coerce States into dramatically expanding their Medicaid programs in violation of the Supreme Court ruling held just three years ago that the Constitution prohibits it from doing. The government is threatening to cut off federal funding for unrelated programs unless they "agree" to do so by expanding Medicaid programs via [[Obamacare]].<ref name="pacer.gov"/><ref>http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-gov-rick-scott-suing-obama-administration-over-health-care-funding/2225790</ref>
 
=== January 26, 2015 ===
On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge [Y]The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General [[Mike DeWine]] on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the "Transitional Reinsurance Program" of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary "contributions" from State and local governments.
<ref name="pacer.gov">http://www.pacer.gov</ref><ref name="breitbart.com">http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/04/could-this-be-the-case-that-ends-obamacare/</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-sues-over-obamacare-taxes-state-local-governments-181949498.html?bcmt=comments-postbox</ref><ref>http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/courts/2015/01/26/ohio-warren-co-sues-feds-over-obamacare-fees/22354337/</ref>
 
=== November 21, 2014 ===
On November 21, 2014, (1:14-cv-01967-RMC)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The [[United States House of Representatives v. Burwell]],et al was filed by the [[House of Representatives]] which challenges the "Payment of Funds to insurance companies" and other constitutional violations of the law. [[Jonathan Turley]] acted as the lawyer for this lawsuit and was paid by a contract with the [[House of Representatives]] . He is the third lawyer hired to do the lawsuit, since the first 2 lawyers dropped out due to political or other conflicts. As of May 29, 2015 the question of valid “standing” still had not been determined.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-grills-lawyer-defending-obamas-healthcare-law-165533045.html?bcmt=1432835606056-5192889a-1cd9-4ede-b3e4-316bca350c32&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container</ref><ref>https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/house-v-burwell-d-d-c-complaint- filed.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/barack-obama-constitution-legal-end-run-around-congress-102231.html#.VWefNFIoHTQ</ref> On May 12, 2016 U.S. District Judge [[Rosemary Collyer]] ruled against the government use of funds to pay insurers. She also stayed her ruling to allow the administration an opportunity to appeal.<ref>http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-rules-for-house-republicans-in-health-care-case-1463074018</ref>
 
=== July 29, 2014 ===
On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed by the office of Attorney General [[Patrick Morrisey]] which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. In April the AG office of [[Patrick Morrisey]] filed a motion for a ruling on Summary Judgment. On October 30, 2015 the case was dismissed. Notice of Appeal was filed on November 6, 2015, the same day the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] decided it will review the [[Contraceptive mandate]] of [[Obamacare]] by combining 7 similar challenges to the contraceptive mandate.<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/court-to-hear-birth-control-challenges/</ref><ref>http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-contraception-mandate/index.html</ref> The case is titled [[Zubik v. Burwell]] and the 6 other challenges include [[Priests for Life]] v. Burwell, [[Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell]], [[Geneva College v. Burwell]],
[[Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell]], [[East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell]] and [[Little Sisters of the Poor]] Home for the Aged v. Burwell.<ref name="pacer.gov"/><ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/9429815-court-grants-all-seven-nonprofit-petitions-in-contraceptive-coverage-cas</ref><ref>http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-burwell-and-why.html</ref><ref>http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/11/scotus-will-hear-all-the-obamacare-contraception-exemption-cases.html</ref><ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zubik-v-burwell/</ref><ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1418.htm/</ref><ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1453.htm</ref><ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-110.htm</ref><ref>
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1505.htm</ref><ref>
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-101.htm</ref>
<ref>
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-105.htm</ref><ref>http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/30/west-virginia-attorney-general-suing-white-house-over-obamacare/</ref>
 
=== July 04, 2014 ===
On July 4, 2014, (1:14-cv-01143-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[American Freedom Law Center]], v. [[Obama]] et al was filed by the American Freedom Law Center which challenges that Obama has violated his constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The State of West Virginia and [[Patrick Morrisey]] have filed a notice of related case on July 29, 2014. On June 3, 2015 a notice of appeal was filed<ref>http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/american-freedom-law-center-v-obama/</ref><ref>http://rightedition.com/2014/11/05/obama-sued-changing-obamacare/</ref>
 
=== January 6, 2014 ===
On January 6, 2014(1:14-cv-00009-WCG/14-2723), United States District Court
Eastern District Of Wisconsin, Constitutional Challenge [N] [[Senator Ron Johnson]] & Brooke Ericson v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. challenged that the government violates Section 1312(d)(3)(D), which was passed so Members of
Congress and their staffs would be subject to the ACA in the same way as
constituents and not get extra subsidies. 38 lawmakers joined the lawsuit by the senator. The court ruled the Senator did not have standing and dismissed the case. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] in Chicago said Johnson also lacked legal standing by a unanimous three-judge panel in April 2015.<ref>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/07/23/implementing-health-reform-senator-rebuffed-in-challenge-to-congressional-participation-in-aca-exchanges/</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/06/us-usa-healthcare-lawsuit-idUSBREA050JI20140106 | work=Reuters | title=U.S. senator sues over healthcare subsidy for Congress | date=January 6, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/ron-johnson-obamacare-lawsuit_n_7064688.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592 | work=Huffington Post | title=Appeals Court Rejects GOP Senator's Obamacare Challenge | date=April 14, 2015}}</ref><ref>http://watchdog.org/122537/obama-lawsuit-obamacare/</ref><ref>http://wsau.com/news/articles/2015/apr/14/wisconsin-senator-loses-appeal-of-obamacare-lawsuit/</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/22/38-gop-lawmakers-join-ron-johnsons-obamacare-lawsuit/ | work=The Washington Post | first=Ed | last=O'Keefe | title=38 GOP lawmakers join Ron Johnson's Obamacare lawsuit | date=April 22, 2014}}</ref>
 
=== December 31, 2013 ===
On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision, "1947 Everson v Board of Education", and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees with the president<ref>http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/transition-to-compliant-policies-03-06-2015.pdf</ref>). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers David Yerushalmi and [[Robert Muise]] from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law". Oral argumentss by [[Robert Muise]] May 12, 2015 of the [[American Freedom Law Center]]. The [[American Freedom Law Center]] also represents [[Pamela Geller]]. The event sponsored by [[Pamela Geller]] was attacked by 2 terrorists on May 4, 2015 in Garland Texas. C, a free speech rally outside the Phoenix mosque allegedly attended by [[Elton Simpson]] and [[Nadir Soofi]], the two gunmen who were killed at the Garland, Texas, event hosted by [[Pamela Geller]]. On August 14, 2015 the DC court of appeals reversed the lower court on standing to sue over violations of the establishment clause, but stated essentially that since [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] is legal the [[Affordable Care Act|ACA]] is legal. On November 11, 2015 a petition was filed at the [[Supreme Court]] for the case [15-632]. On January 11, 2016 the Supreme Court announced it will decline to hear the case, even though the United States Government declined to respond to the petition. On June 15, 2016 the petition was inserted as part of case 1:16-cv-1159, but the case was remanded back to Lancaster County by judge [[Sylvia Rambo]]. On July, 18, 2016 a notice of appeal was filed for case 1:16-cv-1159, USCA case 16-3164. On July, 28, 2016 a motion for partial summary judgement was filed in Philadelphia for , USCA case 16-3164 which among other things requests the court to “Order the United States Government to stop collecting or accessing penalties FOR FAILURE to comply with established tenets or teachings of such sect or division of ANY religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution amendment 1”.<ref name="breitbart.com"/><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgCle8F_zUk</ref><ref>http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/jeffrey-cutler-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/</ref><ref>http://humanevents.com/2015/05/13/the-most-important-obamacare-case-youve-never-heard-of/?utm_source=hedaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl</ref><ref name="thenewrevere.com">http://thenewrevere.com/2015/07/exclusive-consensus-is-the-new-word-for-censorship/</ref><ref name="thenewrevere.com"/><ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/14/jeffrey-cutler-pa-man-loses-court-bid-keep-obamaca/?page=all</ref><ref>https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/0FCDDBFAFAED9D9185257EA10052EE3B/$file/14-5183-1567865.pdf??/</ref>
<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/obamacare_and_the_courts.html</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/steyn_on_garland_texas_terror_attack.html</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/texas-attack-terror-tweets/ | work=CNN | title=Terror attack in Garland, Texas, had ties overseas}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/garland-texas-gunmen-terror-trail-internet/ | work=CBS News | title=Garland, Texas, gunmen left terror trail on Internet before opening fire on police | date=May 6, 2015}}</ref><ref>http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/guns-the-difference-between-the-garland-texas-jihad-and-charlie-hebdo-attacks/</ref><ref>http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2015/05/2_muslim_terrorists_killed_pol.html</ref><ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/29/protest-at-phoenix-mosque//</ref><ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/14/jeffrey-cutler-pa-man-loses-court-bid-keep-obamaca/?page=all/</ref>
 
=== October 30, 2013 ===
On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.<ref>http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/275834801.html</ref><ref>http://apps.americanbar.org/ababoards/blog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=30967&catid=14929</ref>
 
=== September 24, 2013 ===
On September 24, 2013, (1:13-cv-02611-WJM-BNB/13-1540) United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[Little Sisters of the Poor]] v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust and others through their lawyers, the the [[Becket Fund for Religious Liberty]] challenges the constitutionality of the law requiring organizations to provide health insurance which provides coverage for contraceptive methods that they feel violates their religious freedom or face monetary penalties violates the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]]., a class action lawsuit. The case was part of the newest [[Supreme Court]] challenge to the [[Contraceptive mandate]] of Obamacare called [[Zubik v. Burwell]]. The case ended with all appeals court decisions vacated and all 7 cases being sent back to district court by an 8 to 0 decision in the [[Supreme Court]].<ref>http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/uent3shp/district-of-columbia-district-court/priests-for-life-et-al-v-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services-et-al/</ref><ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-supreme-courts-non-sensical-ruling-in-zubik/482967/</ref>
 
=== August 19, 2013 ===
On August 19, 2013, (1:13-cv-01261-EGS) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[Priests for Life]] v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Father [[Frank Pavone]] and others through their lawyers, the [[American Freedom Law Center ]] challenges the constitutionality of the law requiring organizations to provide health insurance which provides coverage for contraceptive methods that they feel violates their religious freedom or face monetary penalties violates the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]]. The case was part of the newest [[Supreme Court]] challenge to the [[Contraceptive mandate]] of Obamacare called [[Zubik v. Burwell]]. The case ended with all appeals court decisions vacated and all 7 cases being sent back to district court by an 8 to 0 decision in the [[Supreme Court]].<ref>http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/uent3shp/district-of-columbia-district-court/priests-for-life-et-al-v-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services-et-al/</ref><ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-supreme-courts-non-sensical-ruling-in-zubik/482967/</ref>
 
 
=== December 4, 2012 ===
On December 4, 2012 (12-cv-06744/13-1144)United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Constitutional Challenge [N]., [[Conestoga Wood Specialties]] Corporation et al v. [[Sebelius]] et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]]. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case lost but was eventually combined with [[Hobby Lobby]] case and sent to the Supreme Court as [[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.<ref>http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/family-owned-conestoga-wood-specialties-files-lawsuit-against-obamacare</ref><ref name="lambdalegal.org">http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/conestoga-v-sebelius-and-sebelius-v-hobby-lobby</ref><ref>http://lancasteronline.com/news/conestoga-wood-case-goes-to-supreme-court/article_5c6e27f3-91bc-5931-917d-02b940a0a500.html</ref><ref name="prospect.org">https://prospect.org/article/affordable-care-act-v-supreme-court-round-2</ref><ref name="scotusblog.com">http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/conestoga-wood-specialties-corp-v-sebelius/</ref>
 
=== September 12, 2012 ===
On September 12, 2012 (12-CV-01000-HE/12-6294), United States District Court
For The Western District Of Oklahoma, Constitutional Challenge [N] Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al v. [[Sebelius]] et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]]. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case won but was eventually combined with [[Conestoga Wood Specialties]] Corporation case and sent to the Supreme Court as [[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.<ref name="lambdalegal.org"/><ref name="prospect.org"/><ref name="scotusblog.com"/>
 
=== July 26, 2010 ===
On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the "Origination Clause" of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all.<ref name="pacer.gov"/><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/m | deadurl=yes}} {{Dead link|date=August 2015|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref>
 
=== June 9, 2010 ===
On June 9, 2010, (1:10-cv-00950-GK/11-5047) United States District Court for the District of Columbia Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[Mead v. Holder]], Margaret Peggy Lee Mead and four other individuals, On March 11, 2011 Margaret Peggy Lee Mead withrew from the case and it became Seven-Sky v. Holder. Susan Seven-Sky became the lead plaintiff in the case. The [[American Center for Law & Justice]] ("[[ACLJ]]") represented the plaintiffs. The case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court found in favor of the government.<ref name="pacer.gov"/><ref>http://www.healthcarelawsuits.org/detail.php?c=2262998&t=Mead-v.-Holder</ref><ref name="americanbar.org">http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-393_petitioneramcuaclj-117congressmbrs-andacljsupporters.authcheckdam.pdf</ref>
 
=== March 23, 2010 ===
On March 23, 2010, (6:10-cv-00015-nkmb/10-2347)United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[Liberty University]], et al. v [[Timothy Geithner]], et al was filed which challenges the "the requirement to have insurance that will pay for elective abortion" and violation of Article I and the First, Fifth, and
Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Appeal was started August 6, 2013<ref>http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-VA-0001-0001.pdf</ref><ref>https://www.ropesgray.com/files/upload/20120207_HRRC_37.pdf</ref><ref>http://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vawdce/6:2010cv00015/76425/</ref><ref>http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/pr_4th_appeals_obamacare_staying_mandate_080613.pdf</ref>
 
=== March 23, 2010 ===
On March 23, 2010(3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT)United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Constitutional Challenge [Y][[Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services]], 20 states (a figure that grew to 26 states following the mid-term elections), the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), and two uninsured individuals similarly argue that the individual requirement to purchase health insurance coverage exceeds the authority granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.[5] The Florida suit also challenges other provisions of the law, including the tax penalty associated with the individual requirement, the Medicaid expansions and the establishment of state health insurance exchanges, the insurance market reforms, and the employer responsibility provisions of the ACA.<ref name="americanbar.org"/><ref name="healthreformgps.org">http://www.healthreformgps.org/resources/health-reform-and-the-constitutional-challenges/</ref><ref>http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8ED2PB/$file/FLMemoOppositiontoMotionToClarify2-23-11.pdf</ref>
 
=== March 23, 2010 ===
On March 23, 2010(3:10-cv-00188/HEH) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]Commonwealth of Virginia, [[Kenneth Cuccinelli]] v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al. In Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius, Virginia Attorney General [[Kenneth Cuccinelli]] argues that Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority granted to it under the U.S. Constitution by requiring individuals to maintain health insurance. In addition, Attorney General Cuccinelli argues that because the federal law is an unlawful exercise of congressional authority, the law violates Virginia’s sovereignty because it invalidates a Virginia law protecting individuals from being forced to purchase health insurance.<ref name="healthreformgps.org"/><ref name="justice.gov">http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/doj/legacy/2014/09/15/cuccinelli-v-sebelius-order.pdf</ref><ref name="justice.gov"/>
 
=== March 23, 2010 ===
On March 23, 2010, (2:10-cv-11156-GCS/RSW/10-2388)United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. [[Thomas More Law Center]], et al. v Barack Hussein Obama, United States HHS,et al was filed by [[Robert Muise]] and Richard Thompson, which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. Lawyers [[Robert Muise]] and David Yerushalmi became the lawyers of record on the case for the plaintiffs. On October 21, 2010 the court rejected plaintiff's arguments. This is considered the first legal challenge to [[Obamacare]]<ref name="pacer.gov"/><ref>http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/doj/legacy/2014/09/15/thomas-more-v-obama-surreply.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/doj/legacy/2014/09/15/thomas-more-v-obama-order-denying-motion.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.thomasmore.org/sites/default/files/TMLCReplyBriefinSupportofMotionforPI--revised.pdf</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102110TMLCdismissal.pdf | work=The Wall Street Journal}}</ref><ref>http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1107_nelson.html</ref><ref>http://media.aclj.org/pdf/michigan-6th-cta-filed-amicus-brief20101215.pdf</ref>
 
 
==External links==
Anonymous user