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.
They probably didn't opine because they wanted be able to nuance (chickens) the answer.
But as it stands now, a state, a person, a cooperation could ignore the federal government. And if the Feds forcefully tried to impose OBotcare, the defendant should have the supreme confidence he would win in court, if a court would even allow it to go forward on the merits, but I doubt the federal gov would try under the circumstances.
Do you think that will happen here (An order to stay the decision)?
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.
Thanks, I appreciate this. It gives me something to look up:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule20.htm
Now, I need to read beyond the original text. Do you have any suggestions on something that can explain it to a layman?
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 noticed that he named two states explicitly, because they had enacted statutes that conflicted with ObamaCare. I wondered if it was appropriate to dispose of the remaining states so handily, if they hadn't enacted similar statutes.
Rest assured, you aren't alone. I was having lunch with some colleagues this morning, and confusion on this case was plentiful.
And they wonder why some don't have respect for the law profession. Of course, in the consulting business -- we have our own "weasel words". :-)
You have no idea how hard it is for a law professor to admit he doesn't know something.
I went to some of my usual sources (constitutional law professors), and those that actually express an opinion disagree. Most won't express a definitive opinion, though. Now, I know why.
Thanks for the tip about how the states were added. I'm still skeptical (because it's ripe for abuse -- all you need is a state to file a suit and pile on), but it gives me a place to start.