A lawsuit challenging the insurance mandate under the healthcare law came before an appellate panel in Cincinnati, though the lawsuit may be dismissed after a plaintiff revealed she recently obtained health insurance through her employer, according to a New York Times news report.
The original lawsuit was filed in March 2010 by the public interest law firm Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich. At that time, Jann DeMars, a member of the law firm, stated that she had the right to sue because she had no health coverage and the insurance mandate would have forced her to "make burdensome choices" in 2014 when the insurance mandate goes into effect, according to the news report.
Since that time, Ms. DeMars purchased a health policy from her employer last October. In a Cincinnati sixth circuit appellate court, Neal K. Katyal, representing the Obama administration in this case, argued to the appellate panel that the lawsuit should be thrown out since Ms. DeMars can no longer demonstrate imminent injury. Judges have yet to decide whether the plaintiff is still able to sue, according to the news report.
Another crucial topic of debate related to whether or not President Obama's insurance mandate fell outside the scope of Congress' power to dictate interstate commerce. When an appellate judge posed that question to Mr. Katyal, he responded, "Congress is not regulating the failure to buy something, but the failure to secure financing," according to the news report.
This case marks the second time a challenge to the insurance mandate has gone before an appellate court. An appeals hearing on a third challenge to the healthcare reform law is scheduled for next week in Atlanta.
Read the news report about the challenge to the insurance mandate.
Related Articles on Challenges to the Healthcare Reform Law:
Gingrich Flip-Flops on Reform Mandate to Buy Insurance
Bill Clinton Thinks Supreme Court Might Nix Coverage Mandate
Supreme Court Has Not Expedited Virginia Lawsuit Against Healthcare Reform
The original lawsuit was filed in March 2010 by the public interest law firm Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich. At that time, Jann DeMars, a member of the law firm, stated that she had the right to sue because she had no health coverage and the insurance mandate would have forced her to "make burdensome choices" in 2014 when the insurance mandate goes into effect, according to the news report.
Since that time, Ms. DeMars purchased a health policy from her employer last October. In a Cincinnati sixth circuit appellate court, Neal K. Katyal, representing the Obama administration in this case, argued to the appellate panel that the lawsuit should be thrown out since Ms. DeMars can no longer demonstrate imminent injury. Judges have yet to decide whether the plaintiff is still able to sue, according to the news report.
Another crucial topic of debate related to whether or not President Obama's insurance mandate fell outside the scope of Congress' power to dictate interstate commerce. When an appellate judge posed that question to Mr. Katyal, he responded, "Congress is not regulating the failure to buy something, but the failure to secure financing," according to the news report.
This case marks the second time a challenge to the insurance mandate has gone before an appellate court. An appeals hearing on a third challenge to the healthcare reform law is scheduled for next week in Atlanta.
Read the news report about the challenge to the insurance mandate.
Related Articles on Challenges to the Healthcare Reform Law:
Gingrich Flip-Flops on Reform Mandate to Buy Insurance
Bill Clinton Thinks Supreme Court Might Nix Coverage Mandate
Supreme Court Has Not Expedited Virginia Lawsuit Against Healthcare Reform