November 1, 2012 — The Obama administration on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it does not object to allowing a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to revive a lawsuit by Liberty University challenging the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148), the AP/U-T San Diego reports (Sherman, AP/U-T San Diego, 10/31).
Background on Lawsuit
In the lawsuit, the conservative Christian university argues that it should have another chance to challenge the law because it opposes it on different grounds than the case that ended up before the court (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/2). Liberty is challenging both the individual mandate and the requirement that large employers provide health coverage for their workers (Stempel, Reuters, 10/31).
Liberty claims the law violates its religious freedom by requiring the purchase of health coverage that it says indirectly contributes to the funding of abortion (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/2). It also argues that the law violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantee and exceeds Congress' power to levy taxes and regulate commerce (Reuters, 10/31).
Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on the ACA, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said it could not rule on Liberty's case because the Anti-Injunction Act prevents suits over a tax that has yet to be levied.
However, the Supreme Court said in its decision on the ACA that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to the individual mandate, which Liberty says shows that the lower court was wrong for declining its case (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/2).
In court papers, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote that Liberty's claims lack merit but that because the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider those merits, the government won't oppose further court proceedings, Reuters reports.
"Under the circumstances of this case, (the government defendants) do not oppose further proceedings in the court of appeals to resolve them," Verrilli wrote (Reuters, 10/31).
According to AP/U-T San Diego, if the Supreme Court justices agree to reopen the case, they most likely would formally dismiss the appeals court's ruling and order it to re-examine Liberty's lawsuit. The appeals court would have the option of requesting new legal briefs from the defendants and plaintiffs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty's claims (AP/U-T San Diego, 10/31).
Debra Ness, publisher & president, National Partnership
Andrea Friedman, associate editor & director of reproductive health programs, National Partnership
Marya Torrez, associate editor & senior reproductive health policy counsel, National Partnership
Melissa Safford, associate editor & policy advocate for reproductive health, National Partnership
Perry Sacks, assistant editor & health program associate, National Partnership
Cindy Romero, assistant editor & communications assistant, National Partnership
Justyn Ware, editor
Amanda Wolfe, editor-in-chief
Heather Drost, Hanna Jaquith, Marcelle Maginnis, Ashley Marchand and Michelle Stuckey, staff writers
Tucker Ball, director of new media, National Partnership