Legal Opinion

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 24, 2018No. 17-3679PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal, we review an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying a motion to intervene filed by the Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home. The Little Sisters sought to intervene in litigation challenging regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The District Court denied the motion, finding that the Little Sisters lacked a significantly protectable interest in the case and that their interests were adequately represented by the federal government. We will reverse.

I

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  2. Donaldson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2017

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Kane County, Utah v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019
  2. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
  3. Pennsylvania v. TrumpDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. ABRAMSON v. AGENTRA, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
  5. Amgen Inc. v. Amneal PharmaceuticalsDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2020

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API