Tag Archives: ZZ: Thomas More Law Center v. Obama

SCOTUSblog: The scattered schedule that lawyers have followed in filing appeals on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law has contributed to the creation of a puzzle for the Court to work out in deciding when, and how, to treat the cases. It now appears that, if the Court wants to wait and act on all six appeals that have now been filed, at the same time, it probably would not consider them until its Conference of December 9.

SCOTUSblog provides this update on the appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and links to some of the recent filings.

Bloomberg: The Obama administration set the stage for possible U.S. Supreme Court consideration of its landmark health-care law, saying it will forgo further review before a federal appeals court that declared part of the law invalid.

Jennifer Haberkorn at POLITICO.com: The court has two very strong reasons to take the case now. First, there are two circuit courts that have ruled in opposite directions on the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate. And second, because the Obama administration lost in the latest ruling, it is going to be the one filing the appeal. The Supreme Court rarely turns down such requests from the federal government, especially on an issue with the scope of the health reform law.

SCOTUSblog links to coverage and offers some insights.

SCOTUSblog: The first significant challenge in the Court to the new health care law raises two constitutional challenges, but they are not pressed with equal vigor.

The Blog of Legal Times: The Thomas More Law Center today announced that it had filed its petition for certiorari in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, its challenge to a June 29 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that upheld the so-called “individual mandate” under the landmark health care legislation.

President Obama’s controversial health care law got a major boost Wednesday when the first ruling by a federal appeals court affirmed that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

Washington Examiner: President Obama’s solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

How Appealing reports on the identity of the panel in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, No. 10-2388 (6th Cir.).

Thomas More Law Center: “This afternoon, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with co-counsel, David Yerushalmi, filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in its first in the Nation challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare. TMLC is challenging the Obamacare mandate that requires all legal residents to purchase ‘minimum essential’ healthcare coverage under penalty of federal law.”

The Detroit News: “A federal judge today dismissed remaining claims in a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform Act of 2010. U.S. District Judge George C. Steeh issued an order that dismissed four claims in a lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian public interest law firm in Ann Arbor.”

WWJ: “Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority by requiring people to have insurance by 2014. He also turned down a challenge Thursday to the financial penalty that comes with having no insurance . . . The lawsuit was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor. The individual plaintiffs don’t have health insurance and said they object to the federal government demanding that they buy it.”

Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, No. 10-CV-11156 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2010)