Donald Verrilli Returns to SCOTUS to Defend Obamacare
An opinion could come down months ahead of the 2020 presidential election if the justices agree to hear the case on an expedited schedule.
January 03, 2020 at 03:39 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. House of Representatives and a Democratic group of state attorneys general on Friday placed the issue of the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court yet again, asking the justices to review an appellate court decision that struck down the health care law's individual mandate as unconstitutional.
Alongside their petitions for writ of certiorari filed with the court, both the state officials and the House separately asked the justices to take up the matter on an expedited basis and schedule oral arguments for this spring.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to follow that schedule, that means an opinion could come down just months ahead of the 2020 presidential election, placing healthcare at the heart of the political debate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled last month that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional but remanded the matter back down to the district court to determine whether it could be severed from the rest of the law.
"The actions of the lower courts have cast doubt on hundreds of other statutory provisions that together regulate a substantial portion of the nation's economy," the state petition reads. "States, health insurers, and millions of Americans rely on those provisions when making important—indeed, life-changing—decisions."
And the House's petition, signed on by former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who previously defended the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court, said the Fifth Circuit ruling "has created an intolerable situation."
"The debilitating effects of this massive uncertainty will persist for years if the Court does not grant review now," the House document reads. "It is thus imperative that this Court grant certiorari promptly to resolve the vitally important questions presented in this petition."
House general counsel Douglas Letter is listed as the counsel of record for the House's case. New York and California are among a coalition of Democratic states that filed a separate cert petition.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has taken up the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. The court in 2012, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that the mandate could exist in the form of a tax.
But after Republicans repealed the tax penalty, a group of GOP-led states sued, claiming the individual mandate couldn't exist without it. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor agreed, and ruled that the entire healthcare law was therefore unconstitutional, a decision widely panned by scholars.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling asked O'Connor to take another look at whether the mandate could be separated from the rest of the law. Whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case before the lower court review is completed is an open question.
If enough justices sign on to take the case, the remainder of this term's docket will be packed with high-profile cases, including fights over subpoenas for President Donald Trump's personal tax records.
Add in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, which Roberts will preside over, and the Supreme Court is all but certain to be at the height of public attention as voters prepare to make their final decisions in the 2020 election.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
3 minute readA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250