Obamacare: court grants PLF’s request to make Origination Clause arguments
The federal district court yesterday granted PLF’s motion to file our amended complaint in Sissel v. HHS, our case challenging the constitutionality of the “tax” on not having health insurance. As my colleague Paul Beard explains in this video, Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in the NFIB v. Sebelius case this summer recharacterized the PPACA’s financial penalty as a “tax,” which was enough for him to uphold its constitutionality—but it raised a new problem: the Constitution says that all “bills for raising revenue” must “originate in the House. Yet the PPACA did not originate in the House; it originated in the Senate. The Supreme Court has rarely addressed the Origination Clause, but now we are asking the D.C. District Court to rule that the tax on not having insurance violates the Constitution. You can read more about that case, and about our client, Matt Sissel, here.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.