Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Challenge to ACA Rejected by Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued two rulings today (September 8, 2011) regarding challenges to the insurance mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In the first ruling, the court ruled that a constitutional challenge to the mandate provision was filed prematurely. In the second ruling, the Fourth Circuit held that the state of Virginia had no legal standing to bring a challenge to the mandate.

The Fourth Circuit panel found that the insurance mandate and corresponding financial penalty is a form of federal tax, and the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) bars lawsuits attempting to block enforcement of a tax measure before it officially goes into effect. The insurance mandate does not officially go into effect until 2014. Subsequently, the lawsuit is premature. Further, the court held that no federal court has jurisdiction to hear such a challenge at this point. The Fourth Circuit is the first federal appeals court to dismiss constitutional challenges to the ACA based on the Anti-Injunction Act. The Obama administration had argued for the AIA theory in previous cases, but the theory was abandoned with the appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Though the theory was not advanced on appeal, the Fourth Circuit came to the AIA theory on its own.

The Fourth Circuit is the third federal appellate court to rule on the constitutionality of the ACA’s mandate provision. The Sixth Circuit supported the mandate, and the Eleventh Circuit ruled against the individual mandate portion of the law. All three federal appellate court rulings were 2-1 decisions.

©2013 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Practice Group. Her practice focuses on general health law including managed care and provider contracting, risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services where she consulted with states regarding federal health law, regulation and policy, evaluating managed care contracts and conducting compliance reviews.

414-287-1586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.