Supreme Court revives challenge to ObamaCare on religious-liberty grounds

Hotair ^ | 11/26/2012 | Ed Morrissey

[SeekAndFind]

A decision by the Supreme Court this morning opens up a potential new avenue of attack against ObamaCare on the grounds of religious liberty — and not just the HHS contraception mandate. The court overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Liberty University over the health-system overhaul, in a move that was not opposed by the Obama administration in court:

The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.

The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms. …

The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.

Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.

The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.

Why didn’t the White House oppose LU’s motion? The timing issue is now largely moot, thanks to that 5-4 decision that upheld the individual mandate as a tax. The lawsuit would have been refiled shortly in any case, which would have only provided a slight delay to the inevitable.

This lawsuit differs from the previous cases used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law. None of the earlier plaintiffs brought up the religious-liberty issue, in large part because HHS hadn’t formulated its arrogant posture that the government can define religious expression. With the HHS contraception mandate now in place, the violation of the First Amendment has now become concrete, and the courts will soon have to decide just how to square the language that that clearly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with the HHS regulation that attempts to restrict religious exercise to only within the walls of a church, synagogue, or temple.

Getting that addressed sooner is a victory in the short run for everyone. Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Wikipedia:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

*********************************EXCERPT***************************************

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26–28, 2012 Decided June 28, 2012
Full case name	National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docket nos.	11-393 11-398 11-400
Citations	567 U.S. ___, 2012 WL 2427810
Prior history	Act declared unconstitutional sub. nom. Florida ex rel. Bondi v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, 780 F.Supp.2d 1256 (N.D. Fla. 2011); Affrimed and reversed in parts, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011); Certiorari granted, 565 U.S. ___ (2011)
Argument	Anti-Injunction Act Individual Mandate Severability Medicaid Expansion
Holding
(1) The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. (2) The individual mandate provision of the ACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. (3) Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may withhold from states refusing to comply with the ACA's Medicaid expansion provision only the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the ACA.[1] Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Court membership
Chief Justice Associate Justices
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts (parts I, II, III-C), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence	Roberts (part IV), joined by Breyer, Kagan
Concurrence	Roberts (parts III-A, III-B, III-D)
Concur/dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; and Breyer, Kagan (parts I, II, III, IV)
Dissent	Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I; 124 Stat. 119–1025 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a landmark^{[2][3][4][5][6]} United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to have health insurance by 2014.^{[7][8][9][10]} The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks, Tex. This whole thing is a real charlie foxtrot.

[Chances Are]

The Court, and Roberts, did rule on the constitutionality of the law.

Roberts himself said the law was constitutional. He didn't say it was good law, just constitutional, and if the voters didn't like it, they had the power to change it by electing people who would change it.

That didn't happen, of course, but that's not to say the final word on this saga has been spoken. It obviously hasn't.

Disabling the law with one fell swoop is now unlikely. It will have to be done piecemeal, until the fabric that holds this law together becomes so frayed it will no longer functionally exist.

We're in this for the long haul, for better or worse. That's the way wars are.

CA....

[Revolting cat!]

Justice John Roberts is going to be a busy boy defending himself against all those blackmails.

[piasa]

All that says is that if you are already covered by a private health plan you do not have to participate.

By the time they ramp up the costs of private health care by imposing coverage requirements on the private company, so much that you lose it or cannot afford it, you are required to go on the Obamacare plan.

[calex59]

I didn't say Roberts said the law was unconstitutional. I said his statement that the Supreme Court wasn't there to protect voters is BS. His job and the job of all nine justices is to protect voters from unconstitutional laws. The reason he ruled it constitutional was because he claimed it wasn't his job to get rid of bad laws and, as I said, that is BS, it is his job. Otherwise what the he** is the Supreme Court for? It is the third piece in the checks and balances that the founding fathers put into place. If the legislature passes an unconstitutional law and the President signs it, the only recourse is for the Supremes to rule it illegal. The fact that Roberts chose not to do so and to then tell is it wasn't his job to get rid of bad laws, after he twisted himself into a prezel to get his phony ruling, tells me he was either blackmailed or his brain suddenly died on him.

He certainly didn't do his job and used weasel words to try and justify his traitorous ruling.

[1010RD]

If you’re correct it’s awesome indeed.

[Jane Long]

The Obama administration just wants to get rid of what amounts to a minor irritation that has more of a political downside than anything else. Obamacare won’t be overturned regardless.

It's a(nother) cookbook!

[nonsporting]

The act still requires my forced association (another 1st amendment violation) to participate in an approved non-Federal health insurance program.

[ladyjane]

Roberts and the rest of the Republicans are being blackmailed. Either that or they are self-serving politicians who care more about their own careers than our Constitution and our country. Probably the latter.

[RWB Patriot]

Hmm, not even bothering to hold my breath this time. If the Supreme Court truly understood individual rights, it would’ve ruled Obamacare unconstitutional the first time.

[superloser]

It is indeed the Supreme's duty and responsibility to save us from unconstitutional laws written and passed by the legislature

The Supremes can only act in the following cases and ways:

1) When a case is brought before them
2) When a case is ARGUED PROPERLY before them
3) When the case brought before them and argued properly clearly spells out that the law is Unconstitutional

The problem with the first case brought before the Supremes is that it was not argued properly. The Government countered that the individual mandate was a tax, which the law states it is. The Constitution allows the Congress to levy and collect taxes. The Constitution does not put a whole lot of restriction on what they can tax.

Think about it this way; before the 16th Amendment, the Congress was levying an Income Tax as an excise on incomes.

Roberts unfortunately ruled properly. The problem is not with the ruling, it is a defect of the Constitution which does not properly limit what Congress can place a tax on. The problem is also with the electorate who voted in a Congress who understands they can tax darned near anything they so desire.

But ... nobody took the First Amendment angle to the Court which is why this issue is now back there.

Likewise, the Commerce Clause is defective in that there are no limits on what parts of "commerce" can be regulated. If the Founding Fathers had put in there a little snippet that said, "limited to regulating the actual movement and provision of goods and services across State borders" ... think about that. How much of what the Feds do today would have never happened if that small little phrase had been attached to the Commerce Clause?

Our problem is we have an 18th Century Constitution put up against 21st Century Lawyers. In the 18th Century, many things were "known" or "given". In the 21st Century, it all depends on what you can strangle out of it.