ACLJ Urges Supreme Court to Consider ObamaCare Appeal in Tandem with Florida Cases

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) announced today it has asked the Supreme Court to consider its appeal in its challenge of ObamaCare in tandem with the Supreme Court's decision to hear ObamaCare challenges from Florida and others. In a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, the ACLJ urges the high court to take its appeal after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. earlier this month declared the individual mandate constitutional.

"The stage is set for the Supreme Court to decide all critical aspects of this flawed health care law," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "While we believe it's appropriate for the high court to consider our appeal in tandem with the Florida decision, we also recognize that the Court may hold our case until it decides the Florida cases. Either way, we remain confident that the Justices will conclude that ObamaCare - including the individual mandate that forces Americans to purchase health insurance - is unconstitutional. In addition to pursuing our own legal challenge, we're preparing to file an amicus brief backing Florida's position on behalf of members of Congress and thousands of Americans. Our position is clear: both the individual mandate and the entire health care law must be rejected."

In its petition filed with the high court, posted here, the ACLJ points out that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit squarely conflicts with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Eleventh Circuit which declared the individual mandate unconstitutional in the Florida challenge.

As the high court prepares to hear the Florida challenge and others, the ACLJ urges the high court to consider its appeal now or hold it until it decides the Florida cases.
 
"As this Court has granted review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision,  Petitioners believe that review of the D.C. Circuit's decision in tandem with the Florida decision is appropriate," the Petition contends. "In the alternative, Petitioners suggest that this Court hold this petition pending the disposition of the Florida cases (Nos. 11-393, 11-398, & 11-400), and then grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings in light of this Court's decision in the Florida cases."

The ACLJ also argues that the D.C. Circuit's decision in favor of the individual mandate conflicts with the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence.

As the ACLJ petition argues: " . . . the D.C. Circuit's decision conflicts with this Court's acknowledgment, more than two centuries ago, that '[t]he powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?'  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803)."

In addition to pursuing its own legal challenge, the ACLJ is preparing an amicus brief to file in support of Florida's position urging the high court to reject the individual mandate. In its amicus brief, the ACLJ is expected to represent more than 100 members of Congress and more than 100,000 Americans who have signed on to the upcoming brief opposing ObamaCare.

The high court will hear oral arguments in the ObamaCare challenges in the spring with a decision expected by the end of the term this summer.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.