‘The majority opinion held that neither the individuals nor the state plaintiffs had “standing” to challenge the mandate or the remainder of the ACA. Under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only decide “cases” or “controversies.” They have no authority to render abstract advisory opinions on the validity of a law. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an actual injury that is traceable to an invalid law and can be redressed or remedied by the courts.
The Court held that with the removal of the tax penalty for noncompliance, the mandate was unenforceable against the plaintiffs. Moreover, any injury caused by the mandate was not “redressable.” Since the mandate could not be enforced, the Court could not enter an order prohibiting its enforcement, and a simple declaration that the law was invalid would be an advisory opinion.’
www.commonwealthfund.org
The Court’s ruling is not complex, intricate, esoteric Constitutional jurisprudence the sole purview of experienced jurists – it’s fundamental doctrine taught early to law students: absent injury, there is no case.
In essence, the plaintiffs’ complaint was addressed and remedied through the political process, when Congressional Republicans eliminated the tax penalty, signed into law by Trump – call it a classic example of unintended consequences.
The Court held that with the removal of the tax penalty for noncompliance, the mandate was unenforceable against the plaintiffs. Moreover, any injury caused by the mandate was not “redressable.” Since the mandate could not be enforced, the Court could not enter an order prohibiting its enforcement, and a simple declaration that the law was invalid would be an advisory opinion.’
The Supreme Court Throws Out the ACA Lawsuit, Not the ACA
Timothy S. Jost reviews the latest Supreme Court ruling, which held that plaintiffs in the latest effort to dismantle the ACA lacked standing to challenge the law.
The Court’s ruling is not complex, intricate, esoteric Constitutional jurisprudence the sole purview of experienced jurists – it’s fundamental doctrine taught early to law students: absent injury, there is no case.
In essence, the plaintiffs’ complaint was addressed and remedied through the political process, when Congressional Republicans eliminated the tax penalty, signed into law by Trump – call it a classic example of unintended consequences.
