The appeal of our federal lawsuit targeting ObamaCare took another step forward today as we filed our reply brief with the Supreme Court once again urging the high court to take our case.
As you'll recall, last month we formally asked the high court to take our case. Today we filed what's called a reply brief - a response to the government's argument on why the high court should not take our case.
In our reply brief posted here, we argue that our lawsuit is separate and distinct from other challenges pending before the high court because it includes a claim that the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance or pay annual penalties, violates the rights of two of its clients who oppose health insurance on religious grounds.
The case we are making in our appeal to the high court is that we represent clients who not only believe ObamaCare is a flawed law, but argue that being forced to participate in ObamaCare - under penalty of law - violates their religious beliefs under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Our request is clear: The Justices should accept our appeal now in tandem with the Florida case currently before the high court. Along with challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, our case includes a unique RFRA claim and provides the Court with an additional vehicle by which to consider the impact the individual mandate has on those Americans who, like the ACLJ’s clients, object to taking part in the health insurance system for religious reasons.
While we argue that our case should be considered separately, we acknowledge that the Court may decide to hold its appeal pending the outcome of the Florida case, then grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand for further proceedings in light of the high court's decision in the Florida case.
As you know, we filed a critical amicus brief last week in the Florida appeal before the high court, representing 117 members of Congress and more than 100,000 Americans - urging the Justices to determine that the individual mandate is inextricably linked to the health care law itself, and that by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, the entire law must be rejected as well.
We are now preparing two additional amicus briefs to be filed with the high court next month regarding two other issues that will be considered by the Justices. We will specifically make a constitutional argument against the individual mandate and present arguments on why the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits lawsuits that prevent the assessment or collection of taxes, does not apply to ObamaCare.
President Trump just signed an Executive Order “to Promote Healthcare Choice and Competition.” This Executive Order allows small businesses to unite to purchase healthcare across state lines and avoid portions of ObamaCare’s onerous mandates and failing healthcare markets. The President has...
Today, the Trump Administration took definitive action in defense of religious liberty. The Departments of Health of Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury issued “ interim final rules ” that, if finalized, will reverse the unconstitutional and illegal HHS Mandate created by the Obama...
The GOP has put forward their final attempt to repeal ObamaCare this year: The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill, also known as Graham-Cassidy . Vice President Mike Pence has aptly described this as “ our last best chance to stop and turn [ObamaCare] around .” Time is of the essence because the...
What if you hired an architect to build you a house and the house collapsed during the housewarming party? Well, that pretty much sums up the work of Dr. Jonathan Gruber, former MIT economist and a chief architect of ObamaCare. As we’ve been reporting for years , Gruber duped the American people: