Huh? This seems like a prescription for chaos. As you have noted, there are competing judgments. Which one is "correct"? The last one?
What makes this case so odd, is the novel approach Vinson took when he asserted a de facto injunction, based entirely on the premise that there's a presumption the federal government will abide by the declaratory judgment.
I don't think it's completely novel, based on the citations. I followed them, and became even more confused because they looked like they might be out of context. See my posting here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2667927/posts?page=99#99
They didn't.
OK, now I have to argue opposite what I've written before, for the sake of clarity: the states are specifically named as "state plaintiffs". How did they become plaintiffs? I thought the rules on venue were supposed to prevent plaintiffs from "forum shopping" except in a limited number of circumstances.
And back to my original question: What exactly does it mean to be a "state plaintiff"? Are there different rules for them, as opposed to "individual plaintiffs"? I understand how the judge ruled that two states had standing, and there was no need to address the others. But, again: how did they circumvent the rules on venue?
But, Vinson argues that his declamatory judgment in this facial challenge is a de facto injunction on the federal government prohibiting them from implementing Obamacare anywhere, not just in the states party to the litigation.
And here's where I get lost, again. The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? All of them? It references a document that I haven't read, so maybe that's what expands it to all the states. But, I keep circling back to "how"? If competing district judges can just keep issuing contrary opinions for multiple states, which one do we believe? Why do we need a Supreme Court?
I know you are trying to help, but now I'm even more confused. I've read divergent opinions from people I respect, and I'm having difficulty reconciling them. I'm trying to do my own original research, but it's frustrated by vagueness of it all.
Like I said, this is an incredibly unique case, not just because of the principles of law at question, but the fact that we have competing civil cases against the same unique defendant (fedgov), brought by multiple states and relatively simultaneously.
You forgot one more factor: an administration that doesn't care about complying with the principles of law.
I understand what you're saying, but it generally isn't this chaotic. And, when there is occasional chaos, the Circuit Courts will restore order by staying decisions that either create initially or just add to the chaos.
"I don't think it's completely novel, based on the citations."
In an as-applied case, that probably true. But, this is a facial challenge, with sweeping repercussions beyond just the litigants in the case. IOW, the state(s) aren't saying that the fedgov is unconstitutionally applying Obamacare to them, they're saying that the individual mandate is facially unconstitutional. Moreover, the de facto injunction in place of a specif order of injunction, is a bit unusual, because of the scope of the case - not unheard of, but unusual.
"How did they become plaintiffs? I thought the rules on venue were supposed to prevent plaintiffs from "forum shopping" except in a limited number of circumstances."
Remember, this action was initially filed solely by the state of Florida. Other states shortly thereafter, using FRCP Rule 20(a)(1), then filed motion to join the action. Motion was granted, and plaintiffs subsequently added.
Forum shopping rules wouldn't have allowed FL to file the action in another district or circuit where they thought they may enjoy a friendlier jurist.
"And back to my original question: What exactly does it mean to be a "state plaintiff"?"
There are different standing thresholds for states compared to individuals. Without doing some research, I couldn't reliably describe the case law that establishes what precisely those differences are, beyond the fact that there are differences. But, standing was questioned by defendant in this case, and that is an issue that is likely to be reviewed upon appeal. There is a chance the judge could be reversed on that issue alone. I'm not familiar enough with the complexities of a state's standing to accurately predict what chances of reversal may (or may not) be on the issue of standing. There's also the matter of ripeness, but that's another thread, altogether. But, that too could be problematic for plaintiffs on appeal.
"The judge grants the plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment. Which ones? "
Multiple plaintiffs, joined in a single action with one request. It is a single lawsuit, at least in Vinson's court.
"I know you are trying to help, but now I'm even more confused."
Rest assured, you aren't alone. I was having lunch with some colleagues this morning, and confusion on this case was plentiful. And as I mentioned, you had a panel of great legal minds - conservative and liberal - in yesterday's Senate hearings, and none of them would publicly opine about what Vinson's ruling meant for the government moving forward. They said that it was too complicated to speculate, without more research. You have no idea how hard it is for a law professor to admit he doesn't know something.
Every federal district judge in the country could give an opinion upholding OBotcare, a federal law, as constitutional except for one who found OBotcare unconstitutional. The unconstitutional finding would be the binding opinion, the law of the land, that would invalidate the federal law.
The opinion stands until the federal government formally appeals the holding where an appellate court takes the appeal and then rules contrary to the unconstitutional opinion against OBotcare.
This is why the socialists love to go judge shopping. Instead this time, they are the turkeys on the defense trying to hold the line.