Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
District Court, District of Columbia
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
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- 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
- Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- Ass'n of American Physicians & Surgeons v. SebeliusCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- Rangel v. BoehnerDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Hotze v. SebeliusDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
- Opinion of the Justices to the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015