31:
261:. The Court of Appeals concluded that section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code (sometimes called the "individual mandate") was not a "Bill for raising Revenue" and thus was not subject to the restriction in the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The Court of Appeals stated that it was therefore unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the bill originated in the House of Representatives. The Court also rejected Sissel's contention that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2012 in the case of
249:, (2) that the Origination Clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the Origination Clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the House of Representatives.
277:. In August 2015, the petition was denied. Four judges dissented from the denial of rehearing. The judges wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing and on the merits of Sissel's claim. They agreed with the three-judge panel's rejection of the petitioner's claim, but offered a different rationale.
225:. The suit also sought clarification from the District Court as to what extent lower courts were legally bound by the conclusion of Chief Justice Roberts and the four dissenting justices that the Act did not pass constitutional scrutiny by way of the
470:
180:
258:
192:
46:
110:
217:
212:
188:
455:
331:
245:
dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the
Commerce Clause challenge to the ACA was foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in
372:
162:
407:
465:
460:
304:
230:
215:, arguing that the ACA was unconstitutional, even in light of the "saving construction" given the law in
428:
176:
30:
8:
281:
222:
200:
184:
158:
136:
358:
394:
126:
417:. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2015-08-17.
221:. on the ground that the enactment of the essential coverage mandate violated the
57:
Matt Sissel, Appellant v. United States
Department of Health & Human Services
242:
226:
449:
131:
181:
constitutional challenge to the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
471:
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit cases
196:
257:
On July 29, 2014, the district court's decision was affirmed by the
183:(ACA). The plaintiffs claimed that the ACA's enactment violated the
259:
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
47:
United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
390:
Sissel v. United States
Department of Health & Human Services
354:
Sissel v. United States
Department of Health & Human Services
274:
172:
Sissel v. United States
Department of Health & Human Services
24:
Sissel v. United States
Department of Health & Human Services
332:"If ObamaCare Is a Tax, Did It Violate the Origination Clause?"
265:"necessarily disposes of Sissel's Commerce Clause claim."
193:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
373:"Obamacare Challenge Over Origins of Law Tossed by U.S."
218:
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
187:of the Constitution. The suit was dismissed by the
305:"PLF takes the next step in challenging Obamacare"
447:
280:On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court denied a
213:U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
189:U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
311:. Pacific Legal Foundation. 12 September 2012
273:Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing
252:
206:
191:, and the dismissal was affirmed by the
456:Healthcare reform in the United States
448:
241:On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge
370:
329:
299:
297:
268:
203:, which declined to hear an appeal.
330:Ellis, Ashton (20 September 2012).
323:
98:, 951 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C. 2013)
13:
294:
14:
482:
236:
211:The plaintiffs filed suit in the
29:
371:Zajac, Andrew (July 29, 2014).
334:. Center for Individual Freedom
421:
400:
382:
364:
346:
1:
287:
466:Affordable Care Act lawsuits
461:Political history of Arizona
96:Petitioner's claim dismissed
7:
436:United States Supreme Court
359:951 F. Supp. 2d 159
231:Necessary and Proper Clause
175:was a lawsuit filed by the
82:760 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
10:
487:
397: (D.C Cir. 2014).
157:
152:
147:
142:
122:
117:
102:
91:
86:
78:
70:
62:
52:
42:
28:
23:
177:Pacific Legal Foundation
107:Rehearing en banc denied
16:US Court of Appeals case
361: (D.D.C. 2013).
253:Court of appeals ruling
207:Background of the case
309:Pacific Liberty Blog
163:Affordable Care Act
415:www.scotusblog.com
395:760 F.3d 1
282:writ of certiorari
269:Subsequent actions
223:Origination Clause
201:U.S. Supreme Court
185:Origination Clause
159:Origination Clause
195:. The plaintiffs
168:
167:
137:Robert L. Wilkins
103:Subsequent action
478:
440:
439:
433:
425:
419:
418:
412:
404:
398:
392:
386:
380:
379:
368:
362:
356:
350:
344:
343:
341:
339:
327:
321:
320:
318:
316:
301:
263:NFIB v. Sebelius
247:NFIB v. Sebelius
127:Judith W. Rogers
118:Court membership
113:August 7, 2015).
33:
21:
20:
486:
485:
481:
480:
479:
477:
476:
475:
446:
445:
444:
443:
431:
427:
426:
422:
410:
406:
405:
401:
388:
387:
383:
369:
365:
352:
351:
347:
337:
335:
328:
324:
314:
312:
303:
302:
295:
290:
271:
255:
243:Beryl A. Howell
239:
227:Commerce Clause
209:
135:
130:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
484:
474:
473:
468:
463:
458:
442:
441:
420:
399:
381:
376:Bloomberg News
363:
345:
322:
292:
291:
289:
286:
270:
267:
254:
251:
238:
237:District court
235:
208:
205:
166:
165:
155:
154:
150:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
124:
123:Judges sitting
120:
119:
115:
114:
104:
100:
99:
93:
89:
88:
84:
83:
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
60:
59:
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
44:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
483:
472:
469:
467:
464:
462:
459:
457:
454:
453:
451:
438:. 2016-01-19.
437:
430:
424:
416:
409:
408:"No. 13-5202"
403:
396:
391:
385:
377:
374:
367:
360:
355:
349:
333:
326:
310:
306:
300:
298:
293:
285:
283:
278:
276:
266:
264:
260:
250:
248:
244:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
214:
204:
202:
198:
197:sought review
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
164:
160:
156:
151:
146:
143:Case opinions
141:
138:
133:
128:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
105:
101:
97:
94:
92:Prior actions
90:
85:
81:
77:
74:July 29, 2014
73:
69:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
32:
27:
22:
19:
435:
429:"Order List"
423:
414:
402:
389:
384:
375:
366:
353:
348:
336:. Retrieved
325:
313:. Retrieved
308:
279:
272:
262:
256:
246:
240:
216:
210:
171:
170:
169:
132:Nina Pillard
106:
95:
87:Case history
56:
35:
18:
66:May 8, 2014
36:No. 13-5202
450:Categories
338:9 February
288:References
315:1 October
111:D.C. Cir.
153:Keywords
79:Citation
275:en banc
199:by the
71:Decided
393:,
357:,
148:Rogers
63:Argued
432:(PDF)
411:(PDF)
179:as a
43:Court
340:2013
317:2012
229:and
452::
434:.
413:.
307:.
296:^
284:.
233:.
161:,
378:.
342:.
319:.
134:,
129:,
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
