Talk:Constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act

Criticism of section

The "Federalism Analysis" section fails to address the important fact that the government can indeed force a citizen into commerce, just not via the commerce clause. I'm not aware of any other tax law that coerces the purchase of a service/product, and certainly not one that is expected to consume ~10% of a lower-middle class income every year. I think this definitely needs to be mentioned.

I'm a Wiki newbee, so I don't know how to create citations, (especially video clips, due to copyrights, etc.) but there is video out there that touches on this issue. Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Fox News is one example.

Could a more experienced editor do something with this, please?Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For citations in general please see WP:CITE. Fore creating citations use the Cite function im the toolbar of the edit window. Please include your contributions in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius article section that deals with the opinion of Chief Justice John Robers, but not in the "Federalism Analysis" section. The "Federalism Analysis" section focuses on federalism i.e. the relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States and not the relationship between individual citizens and and the federal government of the United States. --P3Y229 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

Partial merger with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

I've been assisting with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, only to now find this page. It's largely well-written but there appears to be a massive duplication of effort. Shouldn't the stuff about the Supreme Court go into the other page, with only a short summary and a reference here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a full merger. NFIB v. Sebelius is the docket name of the case that was heard by the Supreme Court, so the content of this article should be merged into it. One topic, one article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not a massive duplication of effort, but an effort to reduce the overloaded Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article by transfering the constitutional challenges to the PPACA into a new article. My proposal is the following one: Transfer of all sections of this article, excluding the Supreme Court section, back to the PPACA site, then a short summary and a reference to NFIB v. Sebelius at PPACA site and fnally deletion of the page "Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". Opinions? --P3Y229 01:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with this course of action, although I think that this article should redirect to NFIB v. Sebelius rather than being deleted outright. We can't know how many people outside of Wikipedia may have linked to this article, and because of that, it's better to have a redirect. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversed my previous opinion and followed Nstrauss proposal by 1.) summarizing National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius on this page, deleting the old stuff and linking this site to the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius article and 2.) by linking National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to the this article site. This approach solved the linking problem mentioned by Kari Hazzard and still reduces the overloaded Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article by transfering the constitutional challenges to the PPACA into the Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article as mentioned above. --P3Y229 14:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

"Opinion of the Court"

The section entitled "Opinion of the Court" is far too simplistic and misrepresents what the Court did and did not do. The only parts of the Roberts opinion that are the "Opinion of the Court" were, in its own words (page 1 of Roberts' opinion), Parts I, II, and III-C. The part about the Commerce Clause was not the Opinion of the Court, it was just the opinion of Justice Roberts. This issue has been hashed out already on the talk page at National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been solved by 1.) shortening the Supreme Court ruling section, 2.) inserting general SCOTUS ruling summary and 3.) inserting a wikilink to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (compare Partial merger with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius thread above). --P3Y229 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up suit needs help

fwiw... the rest of Coons v. Geithner was quietly dismissed back on December 19, 2012 [1] <working link>. Meatspace prevents me from giving this the attention it needs at the moment however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC) -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Move text dump for unidentified case

The following has been moved from the article to here:

The case No. is 1:13-cv-2066

The assigned Judge is Kollar-Kotelly Colleen

Assign Date: 12/31/2013

It challenges the constitutionality of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) as amended, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. See 26 U.S.C. § 5000A (2010); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010); Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1032 (2010) (Reconciliation Act); TRICARE Affirmation Act, Pub. L.No. 111-159, 124 Stat. 1123 (2010); Pub. L. No. 111-173, 124 Stat. 1215 (2010). The Act requires that all nonexempt citizens (applicable individual) and legal residents in the United States either obtain health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents, or face stiff civil penalties (Individual Mandate). Plaintiff asserts that this violates the United States Constitution Religious Freedom of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision , “1947 Everson v Board of Education” by WILLFULLY providing RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS and empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT. This exceeds Congress’s authority under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to regulate and track a person’s religion, and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion.

2.Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaration that the act to “Certify that applicable individual is part of an EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT” and the Act in toto, is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable; The case also seeks to declare the modifications to the act now made by DHHS and President to the the law violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution by not being uniformly applied in all states www.pacer.gov

Merely providing a case number and the name of the judge does not work. You would at least need to know what court the case was filed in, and who the plaintiffs and defendants are. There are other problems with the material, as well, which could be sorted out later. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have determined that the case is Jeffrey Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of the Treasury, and Jacob Lew. The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case no. 1:13-cv-02066-CKK. The plaintiff of course is an individual named Jeffrey Cutler, and he filed pro se (meaning that he does not have a lawyer). Maybe we can clean this up later, and get it into a form that could be used in the article. Famspear (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Name of the Article

Shouldn't this include legal challenges, as well as constitutional challenges? I am far from an expert, but the recent ruling by the Appeals Court in Halbig v. Sebelius was a legal challenge (i.e. interpretation of the law) as opposed to challenging the law's validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff (talk • contribs)

Dear user "Jkaganoff: I don't see any reference in the article to a case called Halbig v. Sebelius.

A dispute over the validity of a statute generally means a dispute over (i.e., a challenge regarding) its constitutionality, which is a type of "legal" dispute.

A dispute over the meaning of a statute is not so much a "legal challenge" to the statute, but is rather a legal dispute involving "statutory construction" -- not validity of the statute under the Constitution.

It gets more confusing, because some cases involve interpretations of regulations issued (supposedly) under the authority of a given statute. A recent case (I don't remember which one) involved the validity of a particular regulation promulgated under the Affordable Care Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the regulation was invalid -- not because of any problem with the Affordable Care Act, but rather because the regulation itself conflicted with another statute enacted by Congress some years ago. The media reported this decision as, roughly, being a decision on "Obamacare" -- but that is misleading for non-lawyers, because many people equate the term "Obamacare" with the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act itself was not ruled unconstitutional in that case.

Anyway, I suppose that to answer the question, I need to read the entire article -- to see if all the disputes described are actually disputes about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL. That was a judicious dodge to avoid naming the Hobby Lobby case... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the Hobby Lobby case -- that's the one I couldn't remember, and it was a recent case: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Yep, that's the one where a regulation under Obamacare was ruled invalid because the regulation conflicted with another statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. How quickly I forget..... If it ain't federal income tax, it ain't at the top of my list. Yes, I'm a federal tax law geek. Ummm.... maybe I need to get out of the office a little more often??? Famspear (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. No, I thought you were attempting to avoid naming it so that it didn't become a crazy magnet. :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be great if someone could invent a secret formula for magically keeping the crazies and vandals out of Wikipedia. I edit mostly in articles related to taxation. Fortunately, most of the Wack-a-Dooster World Contributors seemed to lose interest in Wikipedia tax articles about, I guess, five or six years ago.... When I started editing in late 2005, it was a zoo. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I quickly read the article, and all the cases mentioned do seem to be challenges to the statute itself -- in other words, disputes over its validity under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. So, I would say there is probably no need to change the title of the article at this time. Famspear (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just checked on Halbig v. Sebelius. Based on the brief news report I saw, the decision in this case was not based on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act at all. According to the report, at least, this case involved a challenge to a regulation issued under the Act. The regulation was ruled invalid -- not the Affordable Care Act. At least, that's what the report indicated. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The case is now styled as Halbig v. Burwell. Here's an excerpt:

Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act), makes tax credits available as a form of subsidy to individuals who purchase health insurance through marketplaces—known as “American Health Benefit Exchanges,” or “Exchanges” for short—that are “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act. 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i). On its face, this provision authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. See 42 U.S.C. § 18024(d). But the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted section 36B broadly to authorize the subsidy also for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by the federal government under section 1321 of the Act. See 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1) (hereinafter “IRS Rule”).

Appellants are a group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish Exchanges. For reasons we explain more fully below, the IRS’s interpretation of section 36B makes them subject to certain penalties under the ACA that they would rather not face. Believing that the IRS’s interpretation is inconsistent with [Internal Revenue Code] section 36B, appellants challenge the regulation [26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1)] under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging that it [the regulation] is not “in accordance with law.”

[ . . .]

Because we conclude that the ACA [the Affordable Care Act] unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation.

In other words, the Treasury regulation, the "IRS Rule" (not the statute) has been ruled to be invalid, as the regulation does not conform to the statute. Famspear (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The decision was rendered in the case of Halbig v. Burwell, No. 14-5018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 22, 2014). Famspear (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See Halbig v. Burwell. Famspear (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability of cases

I don't think cases should be mentioned in this article unless they've received at least passing news or SCOTUSblog coverage. There are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there, so we can't rely only on PACER or other primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

173.67.158.36, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. This means there must be consensus for most proposed edits. Please respond to my comment immediately above before you re-add the material about Cutler v. HHS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to add about 450 characters to update the case status. APROXIMATELY 300 of which were about a new case from the STATE OF WV. DO YOU THINK SOMEONE THAT EDITS AND DELETES WITHOUT READING WHAT IS THERE SHOULD CONTROL CONTENT OR BE AN EDITOR ?? The original stuff you decided to cutout appears to be inserted by a user named Famspear. Sylvia Burwell has been making speeches that OBAMACARE IS "settled law" and the edits make it appear this is true. See Below

Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. Case 14-5183. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal.

On July 29, 2014, the State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law.

173.67.158.36 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I really appreciate it. If I may, 3 points:

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Therefore, just because something is true and even verifiable doesn't meet it automatically gets included. The proposed content must also be sufficiently noteworthy to contribute to the encyclopedic value of the article, and also not put undue emphasis on any particular aspect. It's a good rule of thumb that if a case hasn't been written about in the news then it's not particularly noteworthy. There are other cases discussed in this article that have received substantial news coverage, and in my opinion putting Cutler on par with them is undue. As I wrote above, there are lots of crazy lawsuits out there that don't receive attention in Wikipedia, and Cutler doesn't stand out just because it involves the ACA. Especially when there are so people and organizations eager to boost their libertarian credentials by taking a stand against the law.
• Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which personal attacks are not tolerated. Please focus on the content, not on my right to participate. If you continue making personal attacks you might be blocked again.
• Do you have a close personal connection to the Cutler case? If yes I ask that you review Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline. I ask because I see from the pleadings that Mr. Cutler is from Lancaster, PA, the same place where your IP address is registered.

Feel free to interlineate your answers, if you wish. But please, no more reverting until this discussion is resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 173.67.158.36: If you're talking about the Cutler case, number 1:13-cv-02066-CKK, then no, I'm not the editor who added that to the article. That was done on May 15, 2014 by a user at IP 198.212.99.11. The material was in terrible shape, and I removed it. The other editor restored it, so I cleaned it up quite a bit. So, no, I did not add the Cutler case (and I did not add the West Virginia v. HHS material, either, if anyone is interested). Whether these materials on either of these cases should stay in the article is a separate issue, the debate about which I don't have time to participate in right now. I just wanted to clear that up. Famspear (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

173.67.158.36, you are required to continue discussing this issue until it is resolved. If you continue to revert before a consensus is reached then you could be blocked without further notice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Material on Wikipedia generally must be cited to secondary sources that demonstrate the material is noteworthy. Pacer.gov is not a secondary source (nor is citing to it an appropriate citation style; if anything, the docket filings themselves should be cited to). Unless coverage in secondary sources for the Cutler case is established, then I will I agree with Dr. Fleischman that it should not be included in this article. And I would refer the IP editor to WP:BRD and ask the edit warring cease immediately. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You both are trying to CENSOR HISTORY!! EVEN IF YOU DELETE THE CUTLER CASE THE OTHER 2 CASES ARE NOTEWORTHY AND HAVE 2 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHAT ABOUT THEM?? THE SECTION STARTS "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA" SCORES NOW EQUALS 2?? THIS SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OF NEWS MANIPULATION AND EDITS. YOU HAVE AN AGENDA!! AND HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING EDITORS!!!

On July 29, 2014, the State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW) was filed which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014.

On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers. Case 1:13-cv-01214-WCG-142123

173.67.162.239 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. We aren't censoring history by not including it on Wikipedia. That's ridiculous -- there are millions of other sources for history to spew out from. The discussion here was about notability, not whether we hate history or not. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor from Lancaster, please take a deep breath and then try to make a short, coherent, and civil argument for why the material should be included in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lancaster's reference to the Bloomberg Businessweek source, which says there are "Scores of lawsuits around the country ... targeting parts of Obamacare," highlights why we can't include the Cutler case. There are simply too many similar cases that haven't been covered by reliable secondary sources. Our article would be a mess if we included all of them, and they would overwhelm the noteworthy cases that have received news coverage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2014

There seems to be a dispute between what is history and news. I think there should be a history page that is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act so standard people can see unbiased history by date and case no. Individuals have hijacked the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act under Follow-up litigation it starts "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA." SCORES IS NOW 3??173.67.162.239 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 173.67.162.239 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for the proposed POV fork. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

King v. Burwell

King v. Burwell should not be included in this article, as it is not a constitutional challenge, it's a statutory interpretation case. The lawsuit seeks to enforce the ACA as written instead of trying to invalidate it. The fact that an amicus brief may have raised separation of powers issues does not make the case a constitutional challenge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, the recent additions place an undue emphasis on arguments in court briefs, much of which will become far less salient after the Supreme Court actually decides the case in a few months. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Depending on what arguments are laid out in the brief, the separation of powers issue could be a constitutional issue. But, if the separation of powers issue involves only the validity of the regulation, then the issue would not involve a challenge to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act itself, which is what I think my fellow editors are saying. I haven't read the brief. Famspear (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The law will not be invalidated on constitutional grounds because Mr. King and his co-petitioners did not ask for that. It's as simple is that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

^^^This. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't fit in the article with the current title; however, I think that many people (including me) would expect a unified article covering both of these cases, which would argue for renaming this article to "legal challenges" (effectively switching around the delete that just went through). --Dylan Thurston (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

King is not a "legal challenge" to the statute; it's a challenge to how agencies are interpreting and applying the statute. To fit King into an article with the constitutional challenges to the ACA, the article would need to be titled something like "Lawsuits related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", but the scope of such an article would make it a sprawling mess, because any lawsuit involving the ACA--including many that went nowhere--would then be fair game for inclusion. It would be best to leave this article's scope of "constitutional challenges" as is, with a summary of it appearing on the main Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article alongside a summary of important cases like King too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be true if how a statute is interpreted by the executive and the courts wasn't considered part and parcel of the statute itself. The issue in King isn't so much the regulation, it's the interpretation of the statute given by the IRS—if the regulation is correct, then the interpretation of the statute must be valid; thus, by the contrapositive, if the interpretation of the statute is invalid (i.e., the law does not mean 'x'), the regulation must fall (as it predicated upon that 'x'). -- Foofighter20x (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether King is characterized as a direct challenge to a statutory interpretation or a challenge to the regulation that codifies that interpretation, the suit does not challenge the validity of the statute itself. Very distinct legal doctrines separate challenges to statutes from challenges to how statutes are interpreted or applied, and we shouldn't conflate or confuse those concepts in this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Application of an interpretation of the law is not comparable to the creation and application of a regulation authorized by the law. Hobby Lobby was the latter, as ACA authorized the BC regulation; thus, the challenge was to the regulation. King is the former, as it's challenging the administration's view of what the law itself says. Thus, to challenge the authoritative interpretation of the law is to challenge the law itself, since the text of the law and the authoritative interpretation of said law are one and the same. Further, a legal challenge need not seek to strike the law; the same with a constitutional challenge. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that as a convincing distinction. Any time an agency promulgates a regulation pursuant to a statute, it is necessarily interpreting that statute as allowing the promulgation of that regulation. If how the executive branch interprets a statute is "part and parcel" of the statute itself as you say, and regulations are a form of executive branch interpretation of a statute, then all regulations must be part and parcel of the statute too. That means that every time a regulation is challenged, the statute itself is challenged. Even if I were to agree with that reasoning, an article that attempted to cover of that litigation would be too large to manage. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with editor Prototime. Because the parties in King are not challenging the statute, that case doesn't really go in this article. And, if you expand the title and scope of the article to cover litigation involving either the statute or the administrative regulations, the whole thing could easily become unmanageable.

Footnote: In general, a lawsuit challenging a statute is generally going to be a lawsuit about constitutionality.

By contrast, a lawsuit challenging a regulation (such as the lawsuit in the King) case could be either a challenge to the constitutionality of the regulation OR just a challenge to the validity of the regulation on (for example) the ground that the regulation is not a correct implementation of the statute on which the regulation is based. (Of course, you could have both kinds of issues in a single case challenging a regulation.) Famspear (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Foofighter20x, what would be the proposed scope of the "Legal challenges" article, i.e., how would be decide whether a case was a "legal challenge" or not? I would likely support a move if we can come up with a practical and legally sound standard that could be consistently applied. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy: (1) Facial challenges regarding constitutionality, (2) as-applied challenges to constitutionality, (3) suits challenging the gov't's interpretation of the statute that are not constitutional challenges. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Foofighter20x, I'm not convinced your proposed scope would be manageable or make practical sense. I did 2 minutes of Google research and found 3 articles that would fit under category (3):

• Tampa Bay Times: Suit attempted to force CMS to renew Low Income Pool (LIP) under the ACA
• CNBC: Suit attempted to force HHS to disclosure insurers' proposed rates
• Reuters: Suit challenged OPM's decision to exempt Congress from limitations on employer subsidies

These suits, plus a hodgepodge of many more, would end up part of our article, which I believe would fundamentally change the character of the article and might confuse readers. Looking at this broadly ACA creates a huge bureaucracy whose actions will be challenged in court by a variety of public and private interests as long as it exists; I don't think this article should catalog all of them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe the best article name is neither "Constitutional challenges..." or "Legal challenges...", but something like "Major litigation involving the [ACA]"... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

But the problem, in my view, isn't the name so much as the coherence of the article and the manageability of its content. An article that included the three lawsuits listed in my previous comment would be little more than a list of diverse cases. At least the article as written has a coherent theme (articulated by the lead section) and the cases all share a central theme. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe try using a less squishy word than 'coherent'? Or do you care to define that? Sounds like you are employing an exceedingly vague criterion. I would think that any case involving the ACA that made it to SCOTUS review on the merits is major litigation. I would also think the same of any case challenging the constitutionality of the ACA. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't come up with a much better alternative. There's no policy or guideline on article scope, so in my view we should fall back on practical concerns such as what's useful to readers and manageable for editors. I mean, taking your position a step further, we could expand this article to include all notable healthcare-related lawsuits in the U.S., but that's not what this article was intended to be and I doubt you would support it. Maybe the solution is to say, if you want to create a separate article of the scope you're proposing then you're welcome to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that if such an article were to be made, it take the form of a list article (e.g., "List of court cases related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"). This may allow for shorter case summaries in what would otherwise be an unduly large article. In addition, to maintain a WP:NPOV, the article's scope should not be limited to "major" cases (as suggested in the above exchange), because what cases are or are not "major" is a matter of opinion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I spelled out what I meant by "major": a constitutional challenge, or a suit involving the ACA that makes it to SCOTUS on the merits. Please share what other cases you feel that definition doesn't include. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the definition per se; it's that we, as editors, don't get to define our own terms (WP:OR, WP:NPOV). If you can find a term used in reliable sources that means "constitutional challenges to a statute in any court and all Supreme Court cases involving that statute", then that's usable here, though no such terms come to my own mind. Something narrower might work; perhaps an article that only addresses the latter part of your definition (Supreme Court cases). A potential problem with that, though, is that some of its content would duplicate this article's content. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Im not concerned about duplication, but it might be difficult to establish notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A possible POV Fork

Please would interested editors view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where we are discussing a possible copy and paste, or a POV fork from this article. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this sooner. Constitutional challenges are a subset of legal challenges. It would have been wiser to move the content of the Const. chal. page to a Legal chal. page, and then redirect Const. to Legal. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We can simply move the page if there's consensus to do so. The deleted "Legal challenges" page was truly nothing more than a POV fork dressed up in a different name. The problem I have with "Legal challenges" is, what lawsuits are "legal challenges" other than constitutional challenges? Practically speaking, King v. Burwell is widely described as a "threat" to the ACA, but technically it's challenging an administrative action under the ACA and defending the ACA statute as written, and if the plaintiffs win the case the ACA is still very much intact in many states. So I'm not sure King would make it into the article, and I'm not aware of any other non-constitutional case that would make it in either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"[W]hat lawsuits are 'legal challenges' other than constitutional challenges?" Well, the King v. Burwell is the perfect counterexample to the premise in your question. You can challenge a statute's interpretation and enforcement without having to challenge the constitutional validity of the law itself. The interpretation is a derivative extension of the statute itself. That makes such a challenge a legal challenge, but not a constitutional challenge. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Dr. Fleischman. The only type of "legal challenge" one can make to a statute is a constitutional challenge, hence the name of this article. Lawsuits challenging how agencies interpret and apply a statute are not challenges to the statute itself. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120504154723/http://www.chron.com/news/article/Govt-won-t-seek-appeal-in-Atlanta-on-health-care-2189795.php to http://www.chron.com/news/article/Govt-won-t-seek-appeal-in-Atlanta-on-health-care-2189795.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ACRU

@DrFleischman: The ACRU is not a reliable source? So then should the ACLU be considered unreliable as well?Terrorist96 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Other places it has been published: ACRU, Heritage, CNS News.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the source in question is absolutely not a reliable source, for at least three reasons. First, it's clearly an opinion piece. Second, the ACRU is an advocacy group that doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Third, the author, Hans von Spakovsky, doesn't have a stellar reputation for accuracy either, to put it mildly. The fact that he's had commentary pieces published by other conservative outlets has nothing to do with it. And neither does the ACLU, which isn't even mentioned in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Makes no sense. I tried finding the opinion here but I'm having no luck. Thanks for informing me on the above.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a tongue-in-cheek comment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

T'was genuine.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

When I referred to the Spakovsky source as an opinion piece, do you really think I was saying it was a court opinion? Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. I independently tried to find the court case he was supposedly referring to, and couldn't. Seems like a miscommunication between us.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I found it Court Strikes Parts Of Medicaid Managed Care Regulation Over Health Insurance Tax and opinion. Follow up. See the section titled State Challenge To Health Insurance Tax Via Medicaid Managed Care Will Continue. Terrorist96 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Case 4:18-cv-00167-O

Dear all,
As far as I understand the issue, Case 4:18-cv-00167-O would fit into the article but is not mentioned yet.
If I'm wrong, where is the case represented in Wikipedia? Or are there doubts about the relevance?
Thank you in advance!
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify an independent, reliable secondary source discussing the case, such as an article in a reputable newspaper. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@User:DrFleischman,
Are [2] and [3] good enough?
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bloomberg source is an opinion article so not reliable, but the CNN source looks good. I agree this case should be added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that this case? So we'd only have to add, that the justice dep. won't defend the provisions...
Yours, Ciciban (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

new Trump effort to overturn ACA, add?

The Trump administration will urge the US Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act, despite Attorney General William Barr warning Trump officials about the political ramifications of undermining the health care safety net during the coronavirus pandemic. The Trump administration position backs a lawsuit filed by a group of Republican states seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act after Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance.[4][5][6]

X1\ (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)