Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

Since the passage of the
Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by Presid ...
(ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the
U.S. Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
in ''
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a List of landmark court decisions in the United States, landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most ...
'', and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.


Challenges by states

Some organizations and lawmakers who opposed the passage of the ACA took legal action following its passage. Several court challenges involved attempts to invalidate key provisions of the ACA. As of July 2013, none of these challenges had succeeded. Twenty-eight states filed joint or individual lawsuits (including 26 states engaged in a joint action) to strike down the ACA's individual mandate. In a press release, the Attorneys General for several states indicated their primary basis for the challenge was a violation of state sovereignty. Their release repeated the claim challenging the federal requirement under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage. It also claimed that the law puts an unfair financial burden on state governments. The lawsuit states the following legal rationale: Other states were either expected to join the multi-state lawsuit or are considering filing additional independent suits.Funk, Josh (March 22, 2010)
"AG Bruning says health reform violates Constitution"
''
Lincoln Journal Star The ''Lincoln Journal Star'' is an American daily newspaper that serves Lincoln, Nebraska, the state capital and home of the University of Nebraska. It is the most widely read newspaper in Lincoln and has the second-largest circulation in N ...
''. Retrieved 2010-03-23.
Members of several state legislatures are attempting to counteract and prevent elements of the bill within their states. Legislators in 29 states have introduced measures to amend their constitutions to nullify portions of the health care reform law. Thirteen state statutes have been introduced to prohibit portions of the law; two states have already enacted statutory bans. Six legislatures had attempts to enact bans, but the measures were unsuccessful. In August 2010, a ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in Missouri that would exempt the state from some provisions of the bill. Many Missouri legal analysts expect that the measure will be struck down if challenged in Federal court.


Reactions from legal experts

In February 2011, Alexander Bolton wrote in '' The Hill'' that consensus among legal experts largely changed following Judge
Roger Vinson Clyde Roger Vinson (born February 19, 1940) is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Until May 3, 2013, he was also a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surve ...
's decision in ''
Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable C ...
''. Bolton said that prior to the ruling, it was widely felt that the Supreme Court would uphold the law by a comfortable margin, but now legal scholars generally feel it would be a 5–4 decision.
Georgetown University Law Center The Georgetown University Law Center (Georgetown Law) is the law school of Georgetown University, a private research university in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1870 and is the largest law school in the United States by enrollment and ...
professor
Randy Barnett Randy Evan Barnett (born February 5, 1952) is an American legal scholar. He serves as the Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is the director of the Georg ...
said, "There's been a big change in the conventional wisdom ... the temperature of law professors has changed considerably," and described the ''Florida'' decision as "extremely deep in its discussion of principles and constitutional doctrine".


Lower federal courts (prior to the Supreme Court's decision)


District Court for the Northern District of Florida and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

On January 31, 2011, Judge
Roger Vinson Clyde Roger Vinson (born February 19, 1940) is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Until May 3, 2013, he was also a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surve ...
in ''
Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable C ...
'' declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the
individual mandate An individual mandate is a requirement by law for certain persons to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. United States Militia act The Militia Acts of 1792, based on the Constitution's militia clause (in addition to its affirmative ...
to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Vinson further ruled the clause was not severable, which had the effect of striking down the entire law. On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the ACA to remain. In September 2011, the Department of Justice decided not to ask for an
en banc In law, an en banc session (; French for "in bench"; also known as ''in banc'', ''in banco'' or ''in bank'') is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by one judge or a smaller ...
review by the 11th Circuit, and instead asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.


District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Almost immediately after the passage of the ACA, the Virginia state legislature passed a law that purported to nullify the individual mandate provision of the federal Act.
Virginia Virginia, officially the Commonwealth of Virginia, is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions of the United States, between the Atlantic Coast and the Appalachian Mountains. The geography and climate of the Commonwealth ar ...
Attorney General In most common law jurisdictions, the attorney general or attorney-general (sometimes abbreviated AG or Atty.-Gen) is the main legal advisor to the government. The plural is attorneys general. In some jurisdictions, attorneys general also have exec ...
Ken Cuccinelli Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli II ( ; born July 30, 1968) is an American lawyer and politician who served as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security from 2019 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, ...
then sued
Secretary of Health and Human Services The United States secretary of health and human services is the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all health matters. The secretary is ...
Kathleen Sebelius Kathleen Sebelius (; née Gilligan, born May 15, 1948) is an American businesswoman and politician who served as the 21st United States secretary of Health and Human Services from 2009 until 2014. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sebeli ...
in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (in case citations, E.D. Va.) is one of two United States district courts serving the Commonwealth of Virginia. It has jurisdiction over the Northern Virginia, Hampton ...
. Cuccinelli's lawsuit was separate from the states participating in Florida's lawsuit. The case was heard by Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by
George W. Bush George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 43rd president of the United States from 2001 to 2009. A member of the Republican Party, Bush family, and son of the 41st president George H. W. Bush, he ...
. On May 24, 2010, the
Obama administration Barack Obama's tenure as the 44th president of the United States began with his first inauguration on January 20, 2009, and ended on January 20, 2017. A Democrat from Illinois, Obama took office following a decisive victory over Republican ...
filed a
motion to dismiss In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrativ ...
the lawsuit, arguing that states cannot escape federal law simply by passing state laws that contravene federal ones. Cuccinelli filed a counter-motion on June 7, rebutting federal claims and asserting that health insurance was not commerce as intended by the Constitution, and, thus, was not subject to regulation by Congress. A hearing was held on July 2, 2010, where similar arguments were put forth by both sides. On December 13, 2010, Hudson ruled that the individual mandate portion of the health care bill was unconstitutional. However, Hudson did not block implementation of the law while the case continued working its way through the court system. The Obama administration appealed the case to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (in case citations, 4th Cir.) is a federal court located in Richmond, Virginia, with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: * District of Maryla ...
, which granted a request from both parties for an expedited process. On February 3, 2011, Cuccinelli announced that he intended to file an appeal directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals; this request was denied by the Supreme Court on April 25. Hearings were held on May 10, 2011, and May 13, 2011, in Richmond. On September 8, 2011, the appellate court reversed Hudson's decision, in a decision issued by Judge
Diana Gribbon Motz Diana Jane Gribbon Motz (born July 15, 1943) is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Early life and education Born in Washington, D.C., Motz was raised in a legal family. Her fathe ...
. The Fourth Circuit panel ruled that Virginia lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction Subject-matter jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction ''ratione materiae')'' is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority ...
. The state law that was the basis of Cuccinelli's lawsuit was deemed invalid because Virginia lacks the authority to supersede or override federal law. Simply creating a law to use as a smokescreen for the guise of challenging a federal law did not constitute standing. On September 30, 2011, Virginia requested that the Supreme Court issue certiorari to hear the case. The petition was denied on June 29, 2012.


District Court for the Western District of Virginia

On November 30, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon, who sits in Virginia, also declared the individual mandate constitutional in ''
Liberty University v. Geithner Liberty is the ability to do as one pleases, or a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant (i.e. privilege). It is a synonym for the word freedom. In modern politics, liberty is understood as the state of being free within society f ...
''. He also declared the employer mandate constitutional. He rejected two other arguments that government lawyers have made in cases across the country in defending the new law: first, that no one has legal standing to bring challenges at this point to the 2014 mandates, and second that any such challenge is premature. He rejected the challengers' basic argument that Congress had no authority to order someone to give up their own desire not to buy a commercial product and force them into a market they do not want to enter. He said:


District Court for the District of Columbia

On February 22, 2011, Judge
Gladys Kessler Gladys Kessler (born January 22, 1938) is an inactive Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Education and career After receiving her Bachelor of Arts degree from Cornell University ...
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected a challenge to the law in '' Mead v. Holder'' by five individuals who argued, among other things, that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violated the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at through (also known as RFRA, pronounced "rifra"), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religiou ...
, and that the individual mandate exceeded Congress's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Kessler rejected as "pure semantics" plaintiffs' argument that failing to acquire insurance was the regulation of inactivity, noting that "those who choose not to purchase health insurance will ultimately get a 'free ride' on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives." Kessler ruled that individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.


District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

On October 8, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh in ''
Thomas More Law Center v. Obama ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable C ...
'' wrote that in his view the ACA, including the individual mandate, was constitutional. He rejected a private suit filed by Michigan's
Thomas More Law Center The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to its website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christ ...
and several state residents that focused on the
Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and amon ...
, deciding that Congress had the power to pass the law because it affected interstate commerce and was part of a broader regulatory scheme. On June 29, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a member of the three judge panel appointed by George W. Bush, was the first Republican-appointed judge to rule that the law is constitutional.


Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In ''Seven-Sky v. Holder'' on November 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the law. The decision was written by Senior Judge
Laurence Silberman Laurence Hirsch Silberman (October 12, 1935 – October 2, 2022) was an American lawyer, diplomat, jurist, and government official who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia C ...
, a prominent conservative judge, and joined by Senior Judge
Harry T. Edwards Harry Thomas Edwards (born November 3, 1940) is an American jurist and legal scholar. He is currently a Senior United States Circuit Judge and chief judge emeritus of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Was ...
, who also filed a concurring opinion. Judge
Brett Kavanaugh Brett Michael Kavanaugh ( ; born February 12, 1965) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 9, 2018, and has served since Oc ...
dissented, stating that the
Tax Anti-Injunction Act The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, currently codified at , is a United States federal law originally enacted in 1867. The statute provides that with 14 specified exceptions, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any t ...
precluded the court from hearing the case until after the individual mandate took effect. It was reported that the Supreme Court might attempt to follow Kavanaugh's opinion had they wished to hold off on deciding the issue. The Supreme Court indeed heard oral arguments regarding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, ultimately unanimously ruling (though with differing rationales) that it did not apply to this case.


U.S. Supreme Court

On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a
writ of certiorari In law, ''certiorari'' is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. ''Certiorari'' comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of ...
to the United States Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit to consider appeals to its rulings in ''
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a List of landmark court decisions in the United States, landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most ...
'' and ''
Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'', 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable C ...
''. The Court heard oral arguments March 26–28, 2012 and decided the consolidated case on June 28, 2012. Although the Supreme Court declared that the law could not have been upheld under an argument based on the regulatory power of Congress under the
Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution ( Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and amon ...
, the Court declared that the legislatively-declared "penalty" was constitutional as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax, thus upholding the individual mandate. The Court also limited the expansion of Medicaid initially proposed under the ACA. All provisions of the ACA continue to be in effect, with some limits on the Medicaid expansion.


Follow-up litigation

As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA. The
Pacific Legal Foundation Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is a libertarian public interest law firm in the United States.Zumbrun, Ronald A. (2004). "Life, Liberty, and Property Rights," in ''Bringing Justice to the People: The Story of the Freedom-Based Public Interest La ...
initiated a lawsuit, '' Sissel v. U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services'', in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (in case citations, D.D.C.) is a federal district court in the District of Columbia. It also occasionally handles (jointly with the United States District Court for the District of ...
arguing that the ACA was still unconstitutional, even in light of the "saving construction" given the law in ''NFIB v. Sebelius'', on the ground that the enactment of the essential coverage mandate violated the
Origination Clause The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause,Wirls, Daniel and Wirls, Stephen. The Invention of the United States Senate', p. 188 (Taylor & Francis 2004). is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause says ...
. The suit also sought clarification from the District Court as to what extent lower courts were legally bound by the conclusion of Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenting justices that the Act did not pass constitutional scrutiny by way of the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses. On June 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in ''NFIB v. Sebelius'', (2) that the Origination Clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the Origination Clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the House of Representatives. On July 29, 2014, that decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ) , image_skyline = , image_caption = Clockwise from top left: the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall, United States Capitol, Logan Circle, Jefferson Memorial, White House, Adams Morgan, ...
Circuit. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code (sometimes called the "individual mandate") was not a "Bill for raising Revenue", and thus was not subject to the restriction in the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals stated that, therefore, there was no reason for the Court to determine whether the bill originated in the House of Representatives. The Court also rejected Sissel's contention that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2012 in the case of ''National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius'' "necessarily disposes of Sissel's Commerce Clause claim." The
Goldwater Institute The Goldwater Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank located in Phoenix whose stated mission is "to defend and strengthen the freedom guaranteed to all Americans in the constitutions of the United States and all fift ...
challenged the ACA in ''Coons v. Geithner'' by targeting the
Independent Payment Advisory Board The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, was to be a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was to have the explicit task of achiev ...
. According to the Goldwater Institute, the board “will be able to dictate how much doctors can charge for medical care, how insurance companies will pay for it, and when patients can get access to cutting-edge treatments." The litigants argued that because these decisions could not be reviewed by Congress or the courts, the health care legislation violated the
separation of powers Separation of powers refers to the division of a state's government into branches, each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. The typic ...
doctrine. The last claims in the lawsuit were dismissed on December 19, 2012. Coons v. Geithner
(December 19, 2012) United States District Court, D. Arizona. No. CV-10-1714-PHX-GMS.
In August 2013, a U.S. District Court denied the federal government's motion for complete dismissal of a state of Oklahoma lawsuit, ''Pruitt v. Sebelius'', challenging some tax aspects of the ACA, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Republican Oklahoma Attorney General
Scott Pruitt Edward Scott Pruitt (born May 9, 1968) is an American lawyer, lobbyist and Republican politician from the state of Oklahoma. He served as the fourteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from February 17, 2017, to July ...
said: "Oklahoma challenged implementation of the Affordable Care Act after the
IRS The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the revenue service for the United States federal government, which is responsible for collecting U.S. federal taxes and administering the Internal Revenue Code, the main body of the federal statutory tax ...
finalized a rule that would allow the federal government to punish 'large employers' including local government with millions of dollars of tax penalties in states without health care exchanges, which is not allowed under the health care law." AG Pruitt contends that the law as passed allowed these federal penalties to be assessed in states with state insurance exchanges, but did not allow for the same fines to be assessed in states which chose not to set up a state exchange, and thus would be operating under the federal insurance exchanges. A lawsuit entitled '' United States House of Representatives v. Price'' (previously Burwell) was filed in late 2014 concerning the cost-sharing program and implementation of the law. The case was eventually settled before the Court of Appeals in D.C. In February 2018, 20 states, led by
Texas Attorney General The Texas attorney general is the chief legal officer
of the
Ken Paxton Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. (born December 23, 1962) is an American lawyer and politician who has served as the Attorney General of Texas since January 2015. Paxton has described himself as a Tea Party conservative. Paxton was re-elected to a th ...
and
Wisconsin Attorney General The Attorney General of Wisconsin is a constitutional officer in the executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Wisconsin. Forty-five individuals have held the office of Attorney General since statehood. The incumbent is Josh Kaul ...
Brad Schimel Brad Schimel (born February 18, 1965) is an American prosecutor and judge. He was the 44th Attorney General of Wisconsin, serving from 2015 to 2019. He was defeated seeking re-election in 2018 Wisconsin Attorney General election, 2018, and was sub ...
, filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging the ACA is now unconstitutional because the individual mandate tax which '' NFIB v. Sebelius'' rested on was repealed by the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 The Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, , is a congressional revenue act of the United States originally introduced in Congress as the Tax Cuts and Jobs A ...
. In December 2018, he declared the entire law to be unconstitutional. In March 2018, in a suit brought by Texas and other states, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled against the imposition of a federal tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funds, ruling that while the tax was lawful, the regulation implementing it violated the
nondelegation doctrine The doctrine of nondelegation (or non-delegation principle) is the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit ...
and the Administrative Procedure Act. As the Trump administration refused to appeal the decision, a coalition of states led by California led the appeal to this ruling to the
Fifth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in case citations, 5th Cir.) is a United States federal court, federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the United States district court, district courts in the following United Stat ...
, which upheld it in parts. Both parties sought review by the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 17, 2021 in ''California v. Texas'' that Texas and the other plaintiff states did not have
standing Standing, also referred to as orthostasis, is a position in which the body is held in an ''erect'' ("orthostatic") position and supported only by the feet. Although seemingly static, the body rocks slightly back and forth from the ankle in the s ...
to challenge the individual mandate provision to begin with. In September 2022, the same district court judge, Reed O'Connor, ruled that the legal requirements to cover
HIV The human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) are two species of ''Lentivirus'' (a subgroup of retrovirus) that infect humans. Over time, they cause acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a condition in which progressive failure of the immune ...
-prevention drugs, as prescribed by section 1001(5) of the
Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by Presid ...
, violate the
Constitution of the United States The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven articles, it delineates the natio ...
.


See also

* ''
King v. Burwell ''King v. Burwell'', 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, ...
'' * ''
Zubik v. Burwell ''Zubik v. Burwell'', 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation a ...
'' * ''
United States House of Representatives v. Price ''United States House of Representatives v. Azar, et al.'' (previously ''v. Price, et al.''; originally ''v. Burwell, et al.'', also known as the ''House Republicans' lawsuit against President Obama'') was a lawsuit in which the United States Hou ...
'' *
Efforts to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The following is a list of efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (commonly called the ACA or "Obamacare"), which had been enacted by the 111th United States Congress on March 23, 2010. Background A January 9, 2017 Congressional Research ...


References

{{reflist, 30em Affordable Care Act United States case law lists