The PPACA litigation is somewhat unique because the plaintiffs are challenging the mandate several years before it goes into effect. In addition, the states are trying to bring claims regarding a mandate that affects individuals. As a result, the Justice Department has raised a number of jurisdictional defenses in each of the cases. The lower courts, however, have generally rejected those defenses, at least as far as the state plaintiffs are concerned. See
State of Florida ex rel Bondi v. United States Dep't of Health and Human Servs., No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT, 2011 WL 285683 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31,
2011);
Virginia ex rel Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F. Supp.2d 768 (E.D. Va. 2010). A few of the cases brought by individual plaintiffs, however, have been dismissed on the basis of standing. See
New Jersey Physicians, Inc. v. Obama, 757 F. Supp. 2d 502 (D.N.J., 2010) (dismissing complaint for lack of standing);
Liberty Univ. v. Geithner, 753 F. Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010) (dismissing claims of individual plaintiffs for lack of standing, but finding that Liberty College has standing);
Shreeve v. Obama, No. 1:10-CV-71, 2010 WL 4628177 (D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2010) (dismissing complaint and finding among other things that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge PPACA as a whole). But see
Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, No. 10–2388, 2011 WL 2556039 *6 (6th Cir. June 29, 2011) (finding that plaintiffs have standing);
Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684 (M.D. Pa., 2011) (finding that plaintiffs have standing and that their claims are ripe);
Liberty Univ. v. Geithner, 753 F. Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010) (dismissing claims of individual plaintiffs for lack of standing, but finding that Liberty College has standing).
Google Scholar