Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure – Separation of powers – standing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 23, 2014//

Civil Procedure – Separation of powers – standing

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 23, 2014//

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure – Separation of powers – standing

A physician who does not accept patients with insurance, and an association of physicians, lack standing to challenge the IRS’ decision to collect the PPACA tax from individuals who lack insurance, but not businesses that fail to insure their employees.

“Plaintiffs rely especially on Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011), which holds that a private person may present arguments based on the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Yet Bond does not hold that everyone is entitled to litigate about the division between state and federal authority. The Supreme Court does not think that the Constitution’s structural features are open to litigation by persons who do not suffer particularized injuries. See, e.g., Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). Bond was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison under a statute that, she contended, Congress lacked the authority to enact. She sought to remain free. Injury, causation, and redressability were easy to establish. Plaintiffs, by contrast, invoke a long and contestable chain of causation; they do not complain about anything done to them personally. That’s why Allen and similar decisions require dismissal.”

“Plaintiffs would be the wrong persons to litigate even if they had standing. Only persons seeking to advance the interests protected by the mandatory-insurance portions of the Affordable Care Act would have a plausible claim to relief. See Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (discussing the zone-of-interests requirement). Yet plaintiffs, who do not accept insured patients, want to reduce rather than increase the number of persons who carry health insurance. Someone else would be a much more appropriate champion of the contention that the IRS has not done what it should to accomplish the statute’s goal of universal coverage.”

Affirmed.

14-2123 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., v. Koskinen

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Easterbrook, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests