Legal Opinion

Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided June 28, 2013No. Civil Action No. 2010-1263PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a facial constitutional challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, which is the requirement to maintain minimum essential insurance coverage contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended. The plaintiff, Matthew Sissel, complains that this minimum coverage provision— commonly referred- to as the “individual mandate” — is unconstitutional because Congress lacked the power to enact it under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and also because it was passed in violation of the Origination Clause of…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
  2. Ass'n of American Physicians & Surgeons v. SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
  3. Rangel v. BoehnerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
  4. Hotze v. SebeliusDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
  5. Opinion of the Justices to the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API