%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
115.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz
-114.766 -40 Td
1.9 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
66.136 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-66.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHELE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G. W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ADDELL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OANNE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( V.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERRILL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
71.652 -18 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
6.684 -18 Td
(and) Tj
-78.336 -18 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARTHA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A. N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVID) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TEIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M.D.; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AUSANIAS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LEXANDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( T. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENDORF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELEGATE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATHY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(YRON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EFF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELGESON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
126.984 -18 Td
(Plaintiffs,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-44.484 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
135.57 -15 Td
(No. 10-2347) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-36.45 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -1.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IMOTHY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Secretary of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the Treasury of the United States,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(in his official capacity; K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATHLEEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EBELIUS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Secretary of the United) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(States Department of Health and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Human Services, in her official) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(capacity; H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLIS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Secretary) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of the United States Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Labor, in her official capacity;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(., Attorney) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(General of the United States, in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(his official capacity,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
57.288 -18 Td
(Defendants - Appellees.) Tj
-57.288 -18 Td
173 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
8.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -83.95 m 183.8 -83.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -274.7 m 186.6 -91.8 l s
.5 w 0 -472.95 m 173 -472.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -474.6 m 186.6 -291.7 l s
.9 w 0 -481.55 m 183.3 -481.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
4255
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNTAIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EGAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNDATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EVERE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNDATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
29.928 -18 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellants,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-29.928 -18 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IRGINIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URSES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CADEMY) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDIATRICS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TUDENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROGRESS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, d/b/a Doctors) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(for America; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISPANIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -9.7 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -3.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HYSICIANS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LLIANCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARRY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EID) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Senate Majority Leader; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANCY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ELOSI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, House Democratic Leader;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URBIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senator, Assistant) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Majority Leader; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HARLES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CHUMER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senator, Conference) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Vice Chair; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATTY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URRAY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Conference Secretary; M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AX) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AUCUS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senator, Committee on) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Finance Chair; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARKIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Senator, Committee on Health,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Education, Labor and Pensions) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chair;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -190.9 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -383 m 186.6 -207.9 l s
.9 w 0 -389.95 m 183.3 -389.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
6113
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATRICK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EAHY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senator,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Committee on the Judiciary Chair;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARBARA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IKULSKI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senator, HELP) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Subcommittee on Retirement and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Aging Chair; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCKEFELLER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, IV, Senator,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Committee on Commerce Chair;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TENY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OYER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(House Democratic Whip; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LYBURN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Democratic Assistant Leader; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARSON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative, Chair) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Democratic Caucus; X) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVIER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECERRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative, Vice) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chair of Democratic Caucus; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(D. D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INGELL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Sponsor of House Health Care) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Reform Legislation; H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENRY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AXMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative, Ranking) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Member, Committee on Energy) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Commerce; F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RANK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALLONE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(., Representative, Ranking) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Member, Commerce) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Subcommittee on Health; S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EVIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative, Ranking) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Member, Committee on Ways and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Means; F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORTNEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TARK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Representative, Ranking Member,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Ways and Means Subcommittee) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(on Health;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -205.9 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -413 m 186.6 -222.9 l s
.9 w 0 -419.95 m 183.3 -419.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
4272
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
18 0 obj
<<
/Length 19 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OBERT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E. A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NDREWS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Representative, Ranking Member,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Education and Workforce) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Subcommittee on Health; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERROLD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ADLER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Representative, Ranking) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Member, Subcommittee on) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Constitution; G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EORGE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Representative, Ranking Member,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Education and the Workforce) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Committee; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONYERS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Representative, Ranking Member,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Committee on the Judiciary; J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALKIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Knight Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Constitutional Law and the First) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Amendment, Yale Law School;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILLIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETZGER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Law, Columbia Law School;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(REVOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORRISON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(Law, Columbia Law School;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EOPLE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISABILITIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RC) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(THE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(REAST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANCER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CTION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMILIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( USA; F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIENDS) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANCER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ESEARCH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARCH) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNDATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(REAST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANCER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OALITION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RGANIZATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISORDERS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARTNERSHIP) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMILIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENIOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ITIZENS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETWORK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(VARIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANCER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LLIANCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -238.9 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -479 m 186.6 -255.9 l s
.9 w 0 -485.95 m 183.3 -485.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
7430
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
21 0 obj
<<
/Length 22 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSPITAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLLEGES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDERATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSPITALS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UBLIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSPITALS) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(YSTEMS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATHOLIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HILDREN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSPITALS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTINE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( O. G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(REGOIRE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Governor; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AVID) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UTLER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Deputy, Otto Eckstein Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Applied Economics, Harvard) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENRY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Senior Fellow, Economic Studies) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Bruce and Virginia MacLaury) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chair, The Brookings Institution;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EORGE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(KERLOF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Koshland) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Economics,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University of California-Berkeley,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(2001 Nobel Laureate; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TUART) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LTMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Sol C. Chaikin Professor) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of National Health Policy,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Brandeis University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENNETH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RROW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Joan Kenney Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics and Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Operations Research, Stanford) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University 1972 Nobel Laureate;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(USAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(THEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, Harvard University,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(2007 Recipient of the John Bates) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Clark Medal for the most) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(influential American economist) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(under age 40;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -232.3 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -465.8 m 186.6 -249.3 l s
.9 w 0 -472.75 m 183.3 -472.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
6147
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
24 0 obj
<<
/Length 25 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LUMBERG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senior) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Fellow, The Urban Institute,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Health Policy Center; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EONARD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E. B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Daniel) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Patrick Moynihan Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Public Affairs at the Maxwell) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(School, Syracuse University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MITABH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HANDRA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Public Policy Kennedy School of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Government, Harvard University;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHAEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HERNEW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Department of Health Care Policy,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Harvard Medical School; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HILIP) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OOK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, ITT/Sanford) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Public Policy,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Economics, Duke) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LAUDIA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLDIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Henry Lee Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, Harvard University;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROSS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Health Policy and Management,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Mailman School of Public Health,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Columbia University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONATHAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( G) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RUBER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, MIT; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ADLEY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Associate Dean for) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Finance and Planning, Professor) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Senior Health Services) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Researcher, College of Health and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Human Services, George Mason) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -212.5 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -426.2 m 186.6 -229.5 l s
.9 w 0 -433.15 m 183.3 -433.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
4430
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
27 0 obj
<<
/Length 28 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Baker Institute) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Chair in Health Economics and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Economics, Rice) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLAHAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Director, Health Policy Research) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Center, The Urban Institute; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ILL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORWITZ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of Law) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Co-Director of the Program in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Law & Economics, University of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Michigan School of Law; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWRENCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATZ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Elisabeth Allen) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Economics, Harvard) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RANK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EVY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Rose) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Urban Economics,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Department of Urban Studies and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Planning, MIT; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INDERT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Distinguished Research) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Professor of Economics,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University of California, Davis;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASKIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Albert O.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Hirschman Professor of Social) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Science at the Institute for) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Advanced Study, Princeton) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University, 2007 Nobel Laureate;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONHEIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Health Economics, School of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Public Health, University of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Medicine & Dentistry of New) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Jersey; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARILYN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Vice) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(President and Director Health) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Program, American Institutes for) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Research;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -219.1 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -439.4 m 186.6 -236.1 l s
.9 w 0 -446.35 m 183.3 -446.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
4503
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 27 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
31 0 obj
<<
/Length 32 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHARD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J. M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(URNANE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Thompson Professor of Education) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Society, Harvard University;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M. N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHOLS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, George) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Mason University; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AROLD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OLLACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Helen Ross Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Social Service Administration,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University of Chicago; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATTHEW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ABIN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Edward G. and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Nancy S. Jordan Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, University of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(California-Berkeley, 2001) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Recipient of the John Bates Clark) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Medal for the most influential) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -5.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(American economist under age 40;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B. R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EBITZER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Economics, Management, and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Public Policy, Boston University) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(School of Management; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICHAEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EICH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, University of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(California at Berkeley; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(T) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HOMAS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ICE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor, UCLA) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(School of Public Health; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EREDITH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OSENTHAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Department) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Health Policy and Management,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Harvard University, Harvard) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(School of Public Health;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -192.7 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -386.6 m 186.6 -209.7 l s
.9 w 0 -393.55 m 183.3 -393.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
32 0 obj
4078
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 31 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
34 0 obj
<<
/Length 35 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRISTOPHER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UHM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(of Public Policy and Economics,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Department of Economics,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University of Virginia; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONATHAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(KINNER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Economics, Dartmouth College,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Professor of Community and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Family Medicine, Dartmouth) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Medical School; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATHERINE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(WARTZ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Professor, Department of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Health Policy and Management,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Harvard School of Public Health;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. K) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENNETH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARNER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Dean of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(the School of Public Health and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Avedis Donabedian Distinguished) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(University Professor of Public) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -11.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(Health, University of Michigan;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AUL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( N. V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(E) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Senior Fellow, Center on Budget) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(and Policy Priorities; D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(. S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TEPHEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Z) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UCKERMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, Senior Fellow, The) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(Urban Institute; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDERATION OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNTY AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UNICIPAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MPLOYEES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EDICAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( &) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACIFIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SLANDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORUM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LACK) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MPERATIVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -212.5 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -426.2 m 186.6 -229.5 l s
.9 w 0 -433.15 m 183.3 -433.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
35 0 obj
5962
endobj
33 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 34 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
37 0 obj
<<
/Length 38 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HILDBIRTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONNECTION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(BIS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPRODUCTIVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NSTITUTE OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(CIENCE AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UMAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALUES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARYLAND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OALITION FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EFORM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SIAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACIFIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORUM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCIAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ORKERS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OALITION FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( LGBT H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNCIL OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EWISH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNCIL OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RGANIZATIONS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(DUCATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(SSOCIATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -3.7 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -9.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATINA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NSTITUTE FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPRODUCTIVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EAGUE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HYSICIANS FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPRODUCTIVE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HOICE AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AISING) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( V) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OICES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARGENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HRIVER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(ON) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OVERTY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUTHWEST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IDER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(O) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(PPORTUNITIES FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARYLAND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NCORPORATED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROJECT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
34.608 -18 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellees.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
147.012 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -23.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
-14.418 -11.8 Td
(for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.) Tj
24.684 -11.8 Td
(Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge.) Tj
37.338 -11.9 Td
(\(6:10-cv-00015-nkm-mfu\)) Tj
7.194 -23.6 Td
(Argued: May 10, 2011) Tj
-13.662 -23.8 Td
(Decided: September 8, 2011) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -188.5 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -378.2 m 186.6 -205.5 l s
.9 w 0 -385.15 m 183.3 -385.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
38 0 obj
8361
endobj
36 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 37 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
40 0 obj
<<
/Length 41 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
19.422 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-19.422 -51.9 Td
3.32 Tw
(Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Motz) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn concurred. Judge) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(Wynn wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Davis wrote a dis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(senting opinion.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -44.6 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.5 Td
7.06 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Mathew D. Staver, LIBERTY COUNSEL,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
7 Tw
(Orlando, Florida, for Appellants. Neal Kumar Katyal,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.8 Tw
(UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(ton, D.C., for Appellees. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Anita L. Staver, LIB-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.43 Tw
(ERTY COUNSEL, Orlando, Florida; Stephen M. Crampton,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.55 Tw
(Mary E. McAlister, LIBERTY COUNSEL, Lynchburg, Vir-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.32 Tw
(ginia, for Appellants. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.08 Tw
(Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.07 Tw
(B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Samantha L. Chaifetz, UNITED) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Vir-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.61 Tw
(ginia, for Appellees. Joel Spector, MOUNTAIN STATES) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(LEGAL FOUNDATION, Lakewood, Colorado, for Mountain) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.12 Tw
(States Legal Foundation, Amicus Supporting Appellants.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.33 Tw
(Brian S. Koukoutchos, Mandeville, Louisiana; Charles J.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.42 Tw
(Cooper, David H. Thompson, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(Washington, D.C., for Revere America Foundation, Amicus) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
6.82 Tw
(Supporting Appellants. Rebecca Glenberg, AMERICAN) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.67 Tw
(ginia; Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, AMERICAN CIVIL) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.55 Tw
(LIBERTIES UNION, Washington, D.C.; Andrew D. Beck,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.8 Tw
(Brigitte Amiri, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.16 Tw
(New York, New York, for American Civil Liberties Union) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.04 Tw
(and American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Incorporated,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.55 Tw
(Amici Supporting Appellees. Ian Millhiser, CENTER FOR) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -33.45 m 300 -33.45 l s
.5 w 0 -125.45 m 300 -125.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
41 0 obj
3128
endobj
39 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 40 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
43 0 obj
<<
/Length 44 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.86 Tw
0 Tc
(AMERICAN PROGRESS, Washington, D.C., for American) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Incor-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.33 Tw
(porated, American Medical Student Association, Center for) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.71 Tw
(American Progress, d/b/a Doctors for America, National His-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(panic Medical Association, and National Physicians Alliance,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.86 Tw
(Amici Supporting Appellees. Professor Walter Dellinger,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(Washington, D.C.; Professor H. Jefferson Powell, GEORGE) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Washing-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.28 Tw
(ton, D.C., for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.83 Tw
(Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Congressional Leaders) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2 Tw
(and Leaders of Committees of Relevant Jurisdiction, Amici) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(Supporting Appellees. Gillian E. Metzger, Trevor W. Morri-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.52 Tw
(son, New York, New York; Andrew J. Pincus, Charles A.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.28 Tw
(Rothfeld, Paul W. Hughes, Michael B. Kimberly, MAYER) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.83 Tw
(BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Constitutional Law) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.8 Tw
(Professors, Amici Supporting Appellees. Rochelle Bobroff,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.34 Tw
(Simon Lazarus, NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(CENTER, Washington, D.C., for American Association of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4 Tw
(People with Disabilities, The ARC of the United States,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.32 Tw
(Breast Cancer Action, Families USA, Friends of Cancer) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.61 Tw
(Research, March of Dimes Foundation, Mental Health Amer-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.21 Tw
(ica, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Organization) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(for Rare Disorders, National Partnership for Women and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.66 Tw
(Families, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(Women's Health Network, and The Ovarian Cancer National) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.66 Tw
(Alliance, Amici Supporting Appellees. Sheree R. Kanner,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
(Catherine E. Stetson, Dominic F. Perella, Michael D. Kass,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(Sara A. Kraner, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Washington,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.28 Tw
(D.C.; Melinda Reid Hatton, Maureen D. Mudron, AMERI-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.12 Tw
(CAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C.; Ivy) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(Baer, Karen Fisher, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDI-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.21 Tw
(CAL COLLEGES, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey G. Micklos,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.15 Tw
(FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS, Washington,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(D.C.; Larry S. Gage, President, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
6.26 Tw
(OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.05 Tw
(Washington, D.C.; Lisa Gilden, Vice President, General) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.42 Tw
(Counsel/Compliance Officer, THE CATHOLIC HEALTH) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
44 0 obj
3441
endobj
42 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 29 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 43 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
46 0 obj
<<
/Length 47 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.72 Tw
0 Tc
(ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(D.C.; Lawrence A. McAndrews, President and Chief Execu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(tive Officer, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(HOSPITALS, Alexandria, Virginia, for American Hospital) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Fed-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(eration of American Hospitals, National Association of Public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(Hospitals and Health Systems, Catholic Health Association of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.42 Tw
(the United States, and National Association of Children's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.26 Tw
(Hospitals, Amici Supporting Appellees. Kristin Houser,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(Adam Berger, Rebecca J. Roe, William Rutzick, SCHRO-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(ETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER, Seattle, Washington, for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of Washington, Amicus Sup-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(porting Appellees. Richard L. Rosen, ARNOLD & PORTER) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(LLP, Washington, D.C., for Economic Scholars, Amici Sup-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(porting Appellees. Marcia D. Greenberger, Emily J. Martin,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(Judith G. Waxman, Lisa Codispoti, NATIONAL WOMEN'S) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(LAW CENTER; Melissa Hart, UNIVERSITY OF COLO-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.16 Tw
(RADO LAW SCHOOL, Boulder, Colorado, for National) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(Women's Law Center, American Association of University) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(Women, Amerian Federation of State, County and Municipal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(Employees, American Medical Women's Association, Asian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(& Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Black Women's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(Health Imperative, Childbirth Connection, Ibis Reproductive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(Health, Institute of Science and Human Values, Maryland) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform, Mental Health) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(America, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(National Association of Social Workers, National Coalition) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.1 Tw
(for LGBT Health, National Council of Jewish Women,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(National Council of Women's Organizations, National Educa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.26 Tw
(tion Association, National Latina Institute for Reproductive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Health, Older Women's League, Physicians for Reproductive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(Choice and Health, Raising Women's Voices, Sargent Shriver) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(National Center on Poverty Law, Southwest Women's Law) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(Center, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women's Law Cen-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.85 Tw
(ter of Maryland, Incorporated, and Women's Law Project,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Amici Supporting Appellees.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -491.75 m 300 -491.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
47 0 obj
3482
endobj
45 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 46 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
50 0 obj
<<
/Length 51 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -24.7 Td
(DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -24.8 Td
.8 Tw
(Liberty University and certain individuals brought this suit) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(to enjoin, as unconstitutional, enforcement of two provisions) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
4.23 Tw
(of the recently-enacted Patient Protection and Affordable) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.62 Tw
(Care Act. The challenged provisions amend the Internal Rev-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.29 Tw
(enue Code by adding: \(1\) a "penalty" payable to the Secretary) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.07 Tw
(of the Treasury by an individual taxpayer who fails to main-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.97 Tw
(tain adequate health insurance coverage and \(2\) an "assess-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.25 Tw
(able payment" payable to the Secretary of the Treasury by a) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.05 Tw
("large employer" if at least one of its employees receives a tax) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.91 Tw
(credit or government subsidy to offset payments for certain) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.47 Tw
(health-related expenses. The district court upheld these provi-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
4.1 Tw
(sions, ruling that both withstood constitutional challenge.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.32 Tw
(Because this suit constitutes a pre-enforcement action seeking) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.22 Tw
(to restrain the assessment of a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.25 Tw
(strips us of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must vacate the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.88 Tw
(judgment of the district court and remand the case with) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.) Tj
146.502 -24.8 Td
(I.) Tj
-2.334 -24.8 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -24.8 Td
3.51 Tw
(On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
4 Tw
(Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive bill spanning 900) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.96 Tw
(pages, which institutes numerous changes to the financing of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.3 Tw
(health care in the United States. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Pub. L. No. 111-148.) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(Liberty and some individuals \(collectively "plaintiffs"\) chal-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(lenge only two provisions of the Act.) Tj
145.5 -24.8 Td
(1.) Tj
-133.5 -24.8 Td
2.52 Tw
(The first amends the Internal Revenue Code \(sometimes) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
1.52 Tw
("the Code"\) by adding ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.52 Tw
(5000A \("the individual mandate"\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -24.7 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.56 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Affordable Care Act itself refers to the provision as the "Require-) Tj
-10 -10.6 Td
2.37 Tw
(ment to maintain minimum essential coverage." Pub. L. No. 111-148,) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -467.85 m 300 -467.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj
3297
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 50 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.38 Tw
0 Tc
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.38 Tw
(1501\(b\). The individual mandate requires an "appli-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.12 Tw
(cable individual" to "ensure" that beginning after 2013, the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.65 Tw
(individual "is covered under minimum essential coverage.") Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(a\). The individual mandate lists a number of) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.54 Tw
(health insurance programs that qualify for "minimum essen-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.62 Tw
(tial coverage": government- and employer-sponsored plans,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.78 Tw
(individual market plans, and other health plans recognized as) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.94 Tw
(adequate. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.94 Tw
(5000A\(f\)\(1\). If an individual "taxpayer" fails to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.17 Tw
(obtain the required coverage, the "taxpayer" is subject to a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
("penalty." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(1\).) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
.5 Tw
(The Affordable Care Act uses the Internal Revenue Code's) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.62 Tw
(existing tax collection system to implement the penalty. Only) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.65 Tw
(a "taxpayer" is subject to the penalty, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and the Code) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.25 Tw
(defines a "taxpayer" as "any person subject to any internal) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(revenue tax." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.22 Tw
(7701\(a\)\(14\). A taxpayer must include the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.28 Tw
(penalty payment with his regularly-filed income tax return.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(2\). The taxpayer owes the penalty only if he fails) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.75 Tw
(to maintain minimum coverage for a continuous period of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.83 Tw
(three months or longer. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.83 Tw
(5000A\(e\)\(4\)\(A\). The individual) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(mandate also makes a taxpayer liable for a penalty imposed) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.5 Tw
(on his "dependent," as defined in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.5 Tw
(152 of the Code.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.25 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.25 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(A\). Akin to the joint liability of spouses for) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(income taxes, I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.83 Tw
(6013\(d\)\(3\), a taxpayer is also jointly) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.18 Tw
(liable for a spouse's penalty if filing a joint income tax return.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\).) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
1.47 Tw
(A taxpayer subject to the penalty owes the greater of: \(1\)) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.35 Tw
(a "flat dollar amount" equal to $95 for the taxable year begin-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.23 Tw
(ning 2014, $325 for 2015, $695 for 2016, and $695 indexed) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.34 Tw
(to inflation for every year thereafter; or \(2\) a graduated per-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(centage \(1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% every year there-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.63 Tw
(after\) of the amount by which the "taxpayer's household) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.52 Tw
(income," as defined by the Code, exceeds "gross income) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.5 Td
.44 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.44 Tw
(1501. Because plaintiffs refer to it as the individual mandate throughout) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(their complaint and briefs, we often do so as well. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
3977
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.05 Tw
0 Tc
(specified in" I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.05 Tw
(6012\(a\)\(1\) \(the amount of income trig-) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(gering the requirement to file a tax return\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5000A\(c\)\(2\),) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(\(3\). But the penalty may not exceed the cost of the "national) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(average premium for qualified health plans" of a certain level) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of coverage. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(1\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.48 Tw
(Section 5000A\(g\)\(1\) authorizes the Secretary of the Trea-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(sury \("the Secretary"\) to assess and collect the penalty "in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(chapter 68" of the Internal Revenue Code, which in turn con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tains penalties that the Secretary is to "assess[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(] and collect[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(in the same manner as taxes." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.64 Tw
(6671\(a\). Accordingly, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(Affordable Care Act provides the Secretary with all the civil) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(enforcement tools of the Internal Revenue Code subject to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(only one express limitation: the Secretary may not seek col-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.44 Tw
(lection of the penalty by "fil[ing] [a] notice of lien with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(respect to any property" or "levy[ing] on [a taxpayer's] prop-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(erty." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(g\)\(2\)\(B\).) Tj
145.5 -26 Td
(2.) Tj
-133.5 -26 Td
3.25 Tw
(The other provision of the Act challenged by plaintiffs) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(amends the Internal Revenue Code by adding ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.87 Tw
(4980H \(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.31 Tw
("employer mandate"\). Pub. L. No. 111-148, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.31 Tw
(1513. That pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(vision imposes an "assessable payment" on "any applicable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.31 Tw
(large employer" if a health exchange notifies the employer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(that at least one "full-time employee" obtains an "applicable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.63 Tw
(premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction." I.R.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.68 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.68 Tw
(4980H\(a\), \(b\). An "applicable premium tax credit or cost-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(sharing reduction" consists of either \(1\) a tax credit to assist) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(a low-income individual with financing premiums for quali-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(fied health plans or \(2\) a government subsidy to help finance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(an individual's share of out-of-pocket health care costs, as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(provided by the Affordable Care Act. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(4980H\(c\)\(3\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
3 Tw
(Section 4980H calculates the assessable payment differ-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(ently depending on whether the employer offers adequate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(health insurance coverage to its employees. If the employer) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
3716
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.22 Tw
0 Tc
(fails to offer adequate coverage to its full-time employees, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.96 Tw
("assessable payment" is calculated by multiplying $2,000) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(\(increased yearly by the rate of inflation\), by the number of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(total full-time employees, prorated over the number of months) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(an employer is liable. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.96 Tw
(4980H\(a\), \(c\)\(1\), \(c\)\(5\). If, however,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(the employer does offer adequate insurance coverage, the "as-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(sessable payment" is calculated by multiplying $3,000 by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(number of employees receiving the "applicable premium tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(credit or cost-sharing reduction," prorated on a monthly basis) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(and subject to a cap. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(4980H\(b\)\(1\), \(2\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.55 Tw
(A large employer must pay these assessments "upon notice) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(and demand by the Secretary." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.01 Tw
(4980H\(d\)\(1\). The Secretary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(has the authority to assess and collect the exaction in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
("same manner as an assessable penalty" provided by subchap-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ter B of Chapter 68 of the Code. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
3.96 Tw
(On March 23, 2010, the day the President signed the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(Affordable Care Act into law, plaintiffs filed this action to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
(enjoin the Secretary and other government officials from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(enforcing the Act. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege the fol-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lowing facts.) Tj
12 -26 Td
4.67 Tw
(One of the individual plaintiffs, Michele G. Waddell,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(asserts that she "has made a personal choice not to purchase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(health insurance coverage" and does not want to do so in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(future. Waddell maintains that she pays for needed health care) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(services as she uses them. Another individual plaintiff, Joanne) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(V. Merill, asserts that she too has "elected not to purchase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(health insurance coverage" and does not want to do so. Both) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.42 Tw
(Waddell and Merill contend that the individual mandate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(requires them "to either pay for health insurance coverage" or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("face significant penalties.") Tj
12 -26 Td
.18 Tw
(They seek to enjoin the Secretary from assessing or collect-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(ing the exaction prescribed for failure to comply with the indi-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
3313
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18
63 0 obj
<<
/Length 64 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.24 Tw
0 Tc
(vidual mandate. Waddell and Merill assert that, "as part of his) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.93 Tw
(oversight of the Internal Revenue Service," the Secretary has) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(the "power to collect" the penalties "as part of an individual-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
([`s] income tax return." They describe the individual mandate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(as imposing a "penalty in the form of a tax . . . on any tax-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.91 Tw
(payer" who fails to maintain minimum essential coverage.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.46 Tw
(They further allege that the "Taxing and Spending Clause . . .) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.85 Tw
(only grants Congress the power to impose taxes upon certain) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(purchases, not to impose taxes upon citizens who choose not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.01 Tw
(to purchase something such as health insurance." Similarly,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.08 Tw
(Waddell and Merrill repeatedly assert that the individual man-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.31 Tw
(date assesses "a direct tax that is not apportioned according to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(Census data or other population-based measurement," in vio-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(lation of Congress's Taxing Power. Accordingly, they ask to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.04 Tw
(be "free from improper taxation [that] is likely to cause signif-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
(icant financial hardships." They also contend that the individ-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
8.33 Tw
(ual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Commerce Clause of the Constitution.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
2.75 Tw
(Liberty, a private Christian university located in Lynch-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.11 Tw
(burg, Virginia, challenges the "employer mandate" as a tax) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.09 Tw
(that will impose "tax penalties" on it because it has employees) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(who will likely receive a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(Liberty alleges that these "significant penalties" will cause it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(to suffer "substantial financial hardship." According to Lib-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.8 Tw
(erty, the employer mandate constitutes an "unapportioned) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.01 Tw
(direct tax upon employers in violation of" the Constitution,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.97 Tw
(and "[i]mposition of the tax infringes upon Liberty Universi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.2 Tw
(ty's rights to be free from improper taxation." Liberty also) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.34 Tw
(asserts that the employer mandate exceeds Congress's author-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ity under the Commerce Clause.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.78 Tw
(For relief, plaintiffs ask for an injunction restraining all) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(defendants, including the Secretary of the Treasury, from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.31 Tw
("acting in any manner to implement, enforce, or otherwise act) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(under the authority" of the Affordable Care Act. They seek a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.11 Tw
(declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and assert that they) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
3482
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 48 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 67 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.68 Tw
0 Tc
(have no "adequate remedy at law to correct" the continuing) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(constitutional violation.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
0 Tw
(Before the district court, the Secretary moved to dismiss the) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.28 Tw
(case, contending ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(inter ) Tj
(alia) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that the federal tax Anti-Injunction) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.66 Tw
(Act \(AIA\), I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.66 Tw
(7421\(a\), barred the district court from) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(reaching the merits because the challenged penalty is to "be) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.37 Tw
(assessed and collected" in the same manner as a tax and other) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(penalties to which the AIA clearly applies. The court rejected) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(this argument, holding that Congress did not intend to "con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.22 Tw
(vert the[se] penalties into taxes for purposes of the Anti-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(Injunction Act." The court reasoned that \(1\) Congress did not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.69 Tw
(specifically extend the term "tax" in the AIA to include the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.7 Tw
(challenged exactions; and \(2\) the exactions did not qualify as) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.15 Tw
(a "tax" for purposes of the AIA because they "function as reg-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.35 Tw
(ulatory penalties." After rejecting the AIA argument and the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(Secretary's other jurisdictional contentions, the district court) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(concluded that the challenged exactions are "valid exercise[s]) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.72 Tw
(of federal power under the Commerce Clause" and dismissed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.02 Tw
(the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(be granted.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.12 Tw
(Plaintiffs then filed this appeal, asserting that the district) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.2 Tw
(court erred as a matter of law in upholding the Affordable) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(Care Act. The Secretary argued to the contrary, specifically) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
(declining to attack the district court's "threshold determina-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.25 Tw
(tion[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.25 Tw
(]" as to "the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act.") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.71 Tw
(The Secretary did, however, maintain that Congress's Taxing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.13 Tw
(Power under Article I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.13 Tw
(8, cl. 1 of the Constitution authorized) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.32 Tw
(the exactions imposed by the challenged mandates because) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(those mandates "operate as taxes." Because the Secretary's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(contention as to the constitutionality of the mandates under) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(the Taxing Power suggested that the AIA bar might apply to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.9 Tw
(this suit, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(address the applicability of the AIA. In these briefs, both the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(Secretary and plaintiffs contend that the AIA does not bar this) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(action. We disagree.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
3576
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20
70 0 obj
<<
/Length 71 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
(We initially explain why we believe that the plain language) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.97 Tw
(of the AIA bars our consideration of this challenge. We then) Tj
0 -13 Td
.58 Tw
(address the parties' contrary arguments: first those offered by) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(the Secretary \(and largely adopted by the dissent\), then those) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(advanced by plaintiffs.) Tj
144.504 -25.9 Td
(II.) Tj
-.336 -25.9 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
3.52 Tw
(We note at the outset the inescapable fact that federal) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.76 Tw
(courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess "only) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.12 Tw
(that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.42 Tw
(not to be expanded by judicial decree." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Kokkonen v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.83 Tw
(Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 511 U.S. 375, 377 \(1994\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(\(internal citations omitted\). Accordingly, a federal court has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(an "independent obligation" to investigate the limits of its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(subject-matter jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(U.S. 500, 514 \(2006\). This is so even when the parties "either) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(overlook or elect not to press" the issue, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Henderson v. Shin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(seki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1202 \(2011\), or attempt to consent to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(a court's jurisdiction, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Sosna v. Iowa) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 419 U.S. 393, 398) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(\(1975\). Our obligation to examine our subject-matter jurisdic-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(tion is triggered whenever that jurisdiction is "fairly in doubt.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1945 \(2009\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.14 Tw
(As part of the Internal Revenue Code, the AIA provides) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(person." I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(7421\(a\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The parties concede, as they must,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.33 Tw
(that, when applicable, the AIA divests federal courts of) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.95 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes a federal court to issue a) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(declaratory judgment "except with respect to Federal taxes." 28 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.27 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.27 Tw
(2201\(a\). In ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. 725, 732 n.7 \(1974\), the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.16 Tw
(Court held that "the federal tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.81 Tw
(is at least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act." Accordingly, our holding) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(as to the Anti-Injunction Act applies equally to plaintiffs' request for) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(declaratory relief. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -411.25 m 300 -411.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(20) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
3913
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 70 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21
73 0 obj
<<
/Length 74 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.93 Tw
0 Tc
(subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has explicitly) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.51 Tw
(so held. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(370 U.S. 1, 5 \(1962\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.93 Tw
(By its terms the AIA bars suits seeking to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(restrain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(assessment or collection of a tax. Thus, the AIA forbids only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(pre-enforcement actions brought ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(before) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the Secretary of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(Treasury or his delegee, the Internal Revenue Service \(IRS\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(has assessed or collected an exaction. A taxpayer can always) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(pay an assessment, seek a refund directly from the IRS, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(then bring a refund action in federal court. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 553 U.S. 1, 4-5 \(2008\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.42 Tw
(The parties recognize that plaintiffs here have brought a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.08 Tw
(pre-enforcement action. Moreover, although Congress has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(provided numerous express exceptions to the AIA bar, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.1 Tw
(7421\(a\), the parties do not claim that any of these) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(exceptions applies here. Resolution of the case at hand there-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(fore turns on whether plaintiffs' suit seeks to restrain the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(assessment or collection of "any tax.") Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.42 Tw
(A "tax, in the general understanding of the term," is simply) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
("an exaction for the support of the government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(v. Butler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 297 U.S. 1, 61 \(1936\). An exaction qualifies as a tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(even when the exaction raises "obviously negligible" revenue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(and furthers a revenue purpose "secondary" to the primary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(goal of regulation. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Sanchez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 340 U.S. 42, 44) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(\(1950\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12. Thus, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.65 Tw
(term "tax" can describe a wide variety of exactions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(Trailer Marine Transp. Corp. v. Rivera Vazquez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 977 F.2d 1,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(5 \(1st Cir. 1992\) \(surveying cases that have regularly "applied) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(the label `tax'" to a "range of exactions," even those that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("might not be commonly described as taxes"\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.96 Tw
(The Supreme Court has concluded that the AIA uses the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.59 Tw
(term "tax" in its broadest possible sense. This is so because) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(21) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
3705
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 73 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22
76 0 obj
<<
/Length 77 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.28 Tw
0 Tc
(the AIA aims to ensure "prompt collection of . . . lawful reve-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(nue" by preventing taxpayers from inundating tax collectors) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.65 Tw
(with pre-enforcement lawsuits over "disputed sums." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wil-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(liams Packing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 370 U.S. at 7-8. Thus, an exaction constitutes) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(a "tax" for purposes of the AIA so long as the method pre-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.3 Tw
(scribed for its assessment conforms to the process of tax) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(enforcement. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Snyder v. Marks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S. 189, 192 \(1883\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(\(defining a "tax" in the AIA as any exaction "in a condition) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
([of being] collected as a tax"\). Specifically, the AIA prohibits) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(a pre-enforcement challenge to any "exaction [that] is made) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(under color of their offices by revenue officers charged with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(the general authority to assess and collect the revenue." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Phil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(lips v. CIR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 283 U.S. 589, 596 \(1931\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(at 192\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 740 \(applying the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(AIA bar when IRS action is authorized by "requirements of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the [Internal Revenue Code]"\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2 Tw
(The Supreme Court has steadfastly adhered to this broad) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.78 Tw
(construction, notably in holding that the AIA bars pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(enforcement challenges to exactions that do ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( constitute) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
("taxes" under the Constitution. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare ) Tj
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(259 U.S. 16 \(1922\) ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with ) Tj
(Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(U.S. 20 \(1922\). In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. Drexel Furniture) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(refund) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( action,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(the Court held unconstitutional as beyond Congress's Taxing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(Power a "so-called tax," finding it was in truth "a mere pen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(alty, with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(259 U.S. at 38. Yet the Court held the very same provision a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.29 Tw
("tax" for purposes of the AIA and so dismissed a pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(enforcement challenge to the exaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(259 U.S. at 20. In recent years, the Court has expressly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(affirmed these holdings, reiterating that the term "tax" in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(AIA encompasses penalties that function as mere "regulatory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(measure[s] beyond the taxing power of Congress" and Article) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(I of the Constitution. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 740.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.48 Tw
(The Court's broad interpretation of the AIA to bar interfer-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(ence with the assessment of any exaction imposed by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(Code entirely accords with, and indeed seems to be mandated) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(22) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
4176
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 76 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23
79 0 obj
<<
/Length 80 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.22 Tw
0 Tc
(by, other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.9 Tw
(does not use the term "tax" in a vacuum; rather, it protects) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.16 Tw
(from judicial interference the ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(assessment) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( . . . of any tax.") Tj
0 -13 Td
1.05 Tw
(I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.05 Tw
(7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). The Secretary's authority) Tj
0 -13 Td
.82 Tw
(to make such an "assessment . . . of any tax" derives directly) Tj
0 -13 Td
.52 Tw
(from another provision in the Code, which charges the Secre-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(tary with making "assessments of all taxes \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(including) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( interest,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.16 Tw
(additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(penal-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.3 Tw
(ties) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\) imposed by this title." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.3 Tw
(6201\(a\) \(emphases added\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
0 -13 Td
6.02 Tw
(also) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
6.02 Tw
(6202 \("assessment of any internal revenue tax") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(includes assessment of "penalties"\). Thus, for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(very assessment authority that the AIA protects, Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(made clear that "penalties" \(as well as "interest, additional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(amounts, [and] additions to the tax"\) count as "taxes." Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(gress must have intended the term "tax" in the AIA to refer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(to this same broad range of exactions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Erlenbaugh v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.3 Tw
(United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 409 U.S. 239, 243 \(1972\) \("[A] legislative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(body generally uses a particular word with a consistent mean-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ing in a given context."\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.17 Tw
(In sum, the AIA forbids actions that seek to restrain the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to assess) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(exactions imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 740 \(holding AIA barred suit chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(lenging IRS regulatory action when action was authorized by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.15 Tw
("requirements of the [Internal Revenue Code]"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mobile) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(Republican Assembly v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 353 F.3d 1357, 1362) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(& n.5 \(11th Cir. 2003\) \(holding AIA barred suits challenging) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
("penalties imposed" for violating disclosure conditions of tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(exempt status\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 99 F.3d 573,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(583 & n.12 \(4th Cir. 1996\) \(holding AIA applied to "premi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(ums" assessed and collected by the Secretary under color of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(the Internal Revenue Code\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(quin SNG, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 426 U.S. 548, 558 n.9 \(1976\) \(holding AIA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(did not bar challenge to "fees" because fees not "assessed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(under" the Internal Revenue Code\). The exaction imposed for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(failure to comply with the individual mandate constitutes a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.68 Tw
("tax[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.68 Tw
(]" as defined in the Code's assessment provisions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(23) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
4305
endobj
78 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 79 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 24 24
82 0 obj
<<
/Length 83 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.28 Tw
0 Tc
(I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(6201\(a\), 6202, 5000A\(g\)\(1\). For these reasons, the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(AIA bars this action.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
142.506 -26.4 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -26.4 Td
.9 Tw
(The Secretary's contrary contention primarily relies on the) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.5 Tw
(fact that the individual mandate labels the imposed exaction) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.04 Tw
(a "penalty," not a "tax." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.04 Tw
(5000A\(b\). For the Secretary, the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.55 Tw
(Sixth Circuit, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Thomas More Law Center v. Obama) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.4 Tw
(F.3d ___\(6th Cir. 2011\) [No. 10-2388], and now our friend in) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(dissent, this "penalty" label renders the AIA inapplicable.) Tj
144.168 -26.4 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.4 Td
4.8 Tw
(Indisputably, the AIA bars pre-enforcement challenges) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.68 Tw
(even when Congress has "exhibit[ed] its intent" that a chal-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.02 Tw
(lenged exaction function as a "penalty." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare ) Tj
(Bailey v.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.3 Tw
(Drexel) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 38, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with ) Tj
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 20.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.61 Tw
(The term "penalty" therefore describes a category of exaction) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.06 Tw
(to which the Supreme Court has ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(already applied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the AIA.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.42 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although both parties generally contend that the AIA does not bar this) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.45 Tw
(suit, neither offers any reason why the challenge to the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(employer) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( mandate) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(escapes the AIA bar. There is good reason for that. Because Congress) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.36 Tw
(placed the employer mandate in the Internal Revenue Code, triggering the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.86 Tw
(Secretary's authority to assess and collect payment, all of the reasons set) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.26 Tw
(forth in the text as to why the AIA bars a pre-enforcement challenge to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.58 Tw
(the individual mandate also apply to the employer mandate. We addition-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.68 Tw
(ally note that Congress waived none of the Secretary's collection tools in) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.19 Tw
(imposing the employer mandate and labeled the exaction a "tax" in certain) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
3.7 Tw
(subsections. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.7 Tw
(4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\), \(d\)\(1\). Accordingly, the AIA) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(clearly bars Liberty's challenge to the employer mandate. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.4 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This is not to elide the general distinction between taxes and penalties.) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.51 Tw
(We agree with the Sixth Circuit's general observation that there are "con-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.1 Tw
(texts" in which "the law treats `taxes' and `penalties' as mutually exclu-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.73 Tw
(sive." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___ \(slip op. at 11\) \(citing one) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.14 Tw
(bankruptcy and two constitutional cases\). The question here is whether the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.31 Tw
(AIA is one of these "contexts." Neither the Secretary nor the Sixth Circuit) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.93 Tw
(cites a single case suggesting that it is. The dissent relies on some bank-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(ruptcy cases in an attempt to import the distinction between a revenue-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -272.15 m 300 -272.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(24) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
4403
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 82 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 25 25
85 0 obj
<<
/Length 86 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.37 Tw
0 Tc
(Given this history, it seems inconceivable that Congress) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.67 Tw
(would intend to exclude an exaction from the AIA merely by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(describing it as a "penalty.") Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.6 Tw
(To be sure, Congress called the penalty at issue in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bai-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.99 Tw
(ley) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases a "tax." That fact, however, only aids the Secretary) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.64 Tw
(if there is something talismanic about the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(label) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( "penalty" that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.22 Tw
(removes a challenged exaction from the scope of the AIA.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.92 Tw
(The Secretary has cited no case even remotely supporting) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.7 Tw
(such a proposition. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.85 Tw
(instructed that congressional labels have little bearing on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.8 Tw
(whether an exaction qualifies as a "tax" for statutory pur-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(poses. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., ) Tj
(Helwig v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 188 U.S. 605, 613) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(\(1903\) \(holding "use of words" does not "change the nature) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.78 Tw
(and character of the enactment" in the context of the revenue) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(laws\);) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabrica-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(tors of Utah, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 518 U.S. 213, 220 \(1996\) \(requiring a court) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.46 Tw
(to look "behind the label placed on the exaction and rest[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.46 Tw
(] its) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(raising "tax" and a regulatory "penalty" from that context. To accept the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(dissent's view would place us at odds with the Supreme Court's explicit) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.36 Tw
(holding, in the context ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(of the AIA) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, that the distinction between "regulatory) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
2.36 Tw
(and revenue-raising" exactions has been "abandoned." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(U.S. at 741 & n.12. ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.23 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( does not, as the dissent contends, support its view that an exac-) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
1.72 Tw
(tion's label controls. The Court in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( acknowledged that Congress) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(may expressly classify an exaction as a "penalty or in the nature of one,) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(with reference to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( the further action of the officers of the government, or) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.4 Td
1.04 Tw
(with reference to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( the distribution of the moneys thus paid, or ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(with refer-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.52 Tw
(ence to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( its effect upon the individual," and that "it is the duty of the court) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.54 Tw
(to be governed by such statutory direction." 188 U.S. at 613 \(emphasis) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.64 Tw
(added\). The Court then identified statute after statute illustrating the vari-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.36 Tw
(ous ways in which Congress has historically directed a "duty," "additional) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.38 Tw
(duty," or "penalty" to be treated "with reference to" a specified govern-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.19 Tw
(mental action. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 614-19. Congress has provided no such direction) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.61 Tw
("with reference to" the AIA, and ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( makes clear that a mere label) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.33 Tw
(describing an exaction does ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( constitute such direction. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 613) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.88 Tw
(\(explaining that "describing" an exaction "as `a further sum' or `an addi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.06 Tw
(tional duty' will not work a statutory alteration of the nature of the imposi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(tion"\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -247.95 m 300 -247.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(25) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
86 0 obj
4914
endobj
84 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 85 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 26 26
89 0 obj
<<
/Length 90 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.3 Tw
0 Tc
(answer directly on the operation of the provision"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.28 Tw
(States v. Sotelo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 436 U.S. 268, 275 \(1978\) \(holding exaction's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.62 Tw
("penalty" label not dispositive, but its "essential character") Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.7 Tw
(controls, in determining whether exaction is a tax for bank-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
(ruptcy purposes\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. New York) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 315 U.S. 510,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.82 Tw
(515-16 \(1942\) \(stressing that the term "tax" includes "any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.48 Tw
(pecuniary burden laid upon individuals . . . for the purpose of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(supporting the government, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(by whatever name) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( it may be cal-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(led" \(internal quotation omitted and emphasis added\)\).) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.37 Tw
(Indeed, the Court has specifically found an exaction's label) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(immaterial to the applicability of the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(U.S. 557 \(1922\). In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court held that the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
("mere use of [a] word" to describe a challenged exaction was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
("not enough to show" whether a "tax was laid." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 561.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(The Court concluded that one of the challenged exactions,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.45 Tw
(although labeled a "tax," functioned in reality to "suppress) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.08 Tw
(crime" and so fell outside the AIA bar. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Moreover, notwith-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.38 Tw
(standing the "penalty" and "special penalty" labels of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.38 Tw
(other challenged exactions, neither the majority nor Justice) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(Brandeis in dissent gave these labels any import in determin-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(ing the applicability of the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 561-62 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 563-65 \(Brandeis, J., dissenting\).) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.63 Tw
(In light of this history, it is not surprising that no federal) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(appellate court, except the Sixth Circuit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, has) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(ever held that the label affixed to an exaction controls, or is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(even relevant to, the applicability of the AIA.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Nonetheless,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(the Secretary and the dissent insist that the label of an exac-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.57 Tw
(tion does control in determining if the AIA bar applies. We) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.52 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We certainly respect the views of the courts, trumpeted by the dissent,) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.31 Tw
(that have held the AIA inapplicable to suits like the one at hand. We note,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(however, that even unanimity among the lower courts is not necessarily) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(predictive of the views of the Supreme Court. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(CBOCS West, Inc. v.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.55 Tw
(Humphries) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 553 U.S. 442, 472 \(2008\) \(Thomas, J., dissenting\) \(collecting) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.12 Tw
(cases where the Supreme Court has "reject[ed]" a "view uniformly held by) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(the courts of appeals"\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -409.75 m 300 -409.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(26) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
90 0 obj
4361
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 89 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 27 27
92 0 obj
<<
/Length 93 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(first address the Secretary's argument on this point and then) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(the dissent's.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.34 Tw
(The Secretary acknowledges that when "passing on the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13 Td
.21 Tw
(constitutionality) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of a tax law," a court places no weight on the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
("precise form of descriptive words" attached to the challenged) Tj
0 -13 Td
.6 Tw
(exaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 U.S. 359, 363) Tj
0 -13 Td
.38 Tw
(\(1941\) \(internal quotation omitted\) \(emphasis added\). But cit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(ing the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases as authority, the Secretary contends) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(that the opposite rule must apply for purposes of the AIA, i.e.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.68 Tw
(that for purposes of the AIA, the "precise form of descriptive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(words" given an exaction becomes dispositive.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.85 Tw
(The Secretary's reliance on the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases is mysti-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(fying. In fact, they provide no support for his position. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bai-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(ley v. Drexel Furniture) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 38, a refund action, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(Court held that an exaction exceeded Congress's constitu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(tional taxing authority, while on the same day, in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 16, it dismissed a pre-enforcement chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(lenge to the same exaction, characterizing it as a "taxing stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.75 Tw
(ute" for purposes of the AIA. When dismissing the pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(enforcement action, the Court did not state or suggest that it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.02 Tw
(classified the challenged statute as a "taxing statute" because) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(Congress labeled it as such. Nor does it seem plausible that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(the Court implicitly relied on that label, given that it had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(never before and has never since found an exaction's label) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(controlling for statutory purposes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g., ) Tj
(Reorganized CF) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(& I) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 518 U.S. at 220; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sotelo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 436 U.S. at 275; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(at 561; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 188 U.S. at 613. Rather, only one explanation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(of the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases coheres with the Court's precedents:) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.69 Tw
(the term "tax" in the AIA reaches any exaction assessed by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(the Secretary pursuant to his authority under the Internal Rev-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(enue Codeeven one that constitutes a "penalty" for constitu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tional purposes.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.9 Tw
(The dissent's contention that the Supreme Court's reliance) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.56 Tw
(on the statutory label in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is so "obvious" that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(it required no explanation by the Court strikes us as unsound.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(27) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
93 0 obj
4027
endobj
91 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 92 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 28 28
95 0 obj
<<
/Length 96 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.84 Tw
0 Tc
(It seems doubtful that the Court departed from its normal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(practice of ignoring statutory labels without explaining why) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.06 Tw
(it was doing so. Instead, the more likelyand just as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
("straightforward"explanation is that the Court described the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(exaction as a "taxing statute" because Congress had charged) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(the tax collector with assessing the challenged exaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S. at 192.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Contrary to the dissent's belief, this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(holding did not require the Court to perform any elaborate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
("functional analysis," but rather to recognize simply that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(challenged exaction formed part of the general revenue laws.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.88 Tw
(The dissent's related contentionthat our interpretation of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( brings that case into conflict with ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(which the Supreme Court held that the AIA did not bar a cer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(tain pre-enforcement challengealso misses the mark. In) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court faced a challenge to the Secretary's assess-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(ment of an exaction imposed pursuant to the National Prohibi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(tion Act, a statute "primarily designed to define and suppress) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.55 Tw
(crime) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." 259 U.S. at 561 \(emphasis added\). Congress had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.35 Tw
(enacted the statute to "prohibit intoxicating beverages" and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(authorized the tax collector to enforce a "tax" against persons) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(who in violation of this criminal statute illegally manufac-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(tured or sold liquor. 41 Stat. 318. The National Prohibition) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.3 Tw
(Act, however, did not authorize the collector to make an) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.39 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The dissent argues that the statement in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S. at 192-93,) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(that the term "tax" in the AIA refers to those exactions "claimed by the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.59 Tw
(proper public officers to be a tax," makes relevant the Secretary's present) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.48 Tw
(litigation position that the AIA does not bar this lawsuit. The most funda-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.59 Tw
(mental problem with this argument is that the Secretary still does "claim") Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.08 Tw
(that the challenged exaction is a "tax," albeit one authorized by the Consti-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.53 Tw
(tution's Taxing Clause. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellee's Br. at 58. We cannot hold that the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.01 Tw
(AIA does not apply to this "tax" merely because the Secretary has changed) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.35 Tw
(his stance on the AIA and now contends that the exaction is a tax ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( for) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.81 Tw
(constitutional purposes. To give the Secretary's lawyers such a veto over) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.35 Tw
(the AIA bar would abdicate our "independent obligation" to assure our-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.37 Tw
(selves of our own jurisdiction. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Arbaugh) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 U.S. at 514. Moreover, Con-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.8 Tw
(gress called the exaction in the employer mandate a "tax." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 26 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.78 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\), \(d\)\(1\). The argument is for this reason, too, fatally) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(flawed. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -321.25 m 300 -321.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(28) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
96 0 obj
4656
endobj
94 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 95 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 29 29
98 0 obj
<<
/Length 99 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.3 Tw
0 Tc
(assessment under his general revenue authority; rather, it con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(verted him into a federal prosecutor. Specifically, it \(1\) con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.55 Tw
(ferred upon the collector an array of prosecutorial powers,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.97 Tw
(subject to the control of the Attorney General, and \(2\) predi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.14 Tw
(cated the enforcement of the challenged tax on proof of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(crimi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(nal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( guilt. 41 Stat. 305, 317-18. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court held that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(AIA did not bar a pre-enforcement challenge to this exaction) Tj
0 -13 Td
.05 Tw
(because "guarantees of due process" required pre-enforcement) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(review of "penalties for crime." 262 U.S. at 562.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.4 Tw
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( thus casts no doubt on our conclusion that the term) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.35 Tw
("tax" in the AIA reaches any exaction imposed by the Code) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(and) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( assessed by the tax collector pursuant to his general reve-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(nue authority. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( held only that when Congress converts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(the tax assessment process into a vehicle for ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(criminal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( prose-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(cution, the Due Process Clause prohibits courts from applying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. One Ford Coupe Auto.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 272) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(U.S. 321, 329 \(1926\) \(characterizing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( as "merely" a "due) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(process" case\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 743 \(describ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( as permitting pre-enforcement review of "tax stat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(utes" that function as "adjuncts to the criminal law"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lynn v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(West) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 134 F.3d 582, 594-95 \(4th Cir. 1998\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(proposition that courts possess jurisdiction to enjoin "a tax) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(that is in reality a criminal penalty"\). Of course, the individual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(mandate imposes no such ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(criminal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( penalty, and thus presents) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(no constitutional impediment to applying the AIA. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.22 Tw
(In sum, the Supreme Court has itself emphasized that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(creates only a narrow constitutional limitation, not applicable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(here, on the holding of the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases that the AIA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(reaches a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(broader) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( range of exactions than does the term "tax") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(in the Constitution. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12 \(cit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and noting, in the context of the AIA, that the Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.11 Tw
(has since "abandoned" any distinction between "revenue-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(raising" taxes and "regulatory" penalties\). Yet the theory pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(pounded by the Secretary and the dissentthat a label trans-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(forms a constitutional "tax" into a "penalty" for AIA purposes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
( would yield an AIA that reaches ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(fewer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exactions than does) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(29) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
99 0 obj
4561
endobj
97 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 98 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 30 30
101 0 obj
<<
/Length 102 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.03 Tw
0 Tc
(the Constitution. As former Commissioners of the IRS noted) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(in criticizing this argument, this is the "opposite of what the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.48 Tw
(Supreme Court held" in the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Brief for) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(Mortimer Caplin & Sheldon Cohen as Amici Curiae Support-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(ing Appellees at 24, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Seven-Sky v. Holder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 11-5047 \(D.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(Cir. July 1, 2011\). The Secretary all but acknowledges this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(fact, admitting that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases show only the "converse") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(of the position that he now propounds. We cannot upend the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.67 Tw
(Supreme Court's settled framework for determining if an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(exaction is a tax for statutory purposes on the basis of a theory) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(for which the Secretary musters only cases that hold the "con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(verse.") Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.55 Tw
(Perhaps in recognition of the dearth of case law supporting) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(their argument, the Secretary and the dissent rely heavily on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(an inference they draw from the structure of the Internal Rev-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(enue Code to support their position.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.25 Tw
(Section 6665\(a\)\(2\) provides the starting point for this infer-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.49 Tw
(ence; it states that "any reference in this title to `tax' imposed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the . . . penalties) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
11.15 Tw
(provided by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(this chapter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(," i.e. Chapter 68. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
4.6 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.6 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\)\(emphasis added\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.6 Tw
(6671\(a\) \(redun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(dantly stating the same for "penalties and liabilities provided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(by" subchapter B of Chapter 68\). According to the Secretary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.75 Tw
(and the dissent, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.75 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) necessarily implies that any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.19 Tw
("penalty" outside of Chapter 68 does not qualify as a "tax" for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(purposes of the Code. Because Congress codified the individ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(ual mandate in Chapter 48 of the Code \(entitled "Miscella-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.11 Tw
(neous Excise Taxes"\) rather than Chapter 68 \(entitled) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
("Assessable Penalties"\), the Secretary and the dissent urge us) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(to infer that Congress did not intend the individual mandate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(to constitute a "tax" for purposes of the AIA.) Tj
12 -26 Td
4.8 Tw
(The fundamental difficulty with this argument is that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.7 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) merely clarifies that the term "tax" encompasses) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(30) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
102 0 obj
3752
endobj
100 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 87 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 101 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 31 31
104 0 obj
<<
/Length 105 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.2 Tw
0 Tc
(the penalties contained in Chapter 68; it does not limit the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(term "tax" to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( these penalties. Nor can we imply such an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(limitation, for courts must not "read the enumeration of one) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(case to exclude another unless it is fair to suppose that Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(gress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(to it." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 537 U.S. 149, 168) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(\(2003\). There is no evidence that in enacting the clarifying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.47 Tw
(language of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.47 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\), Congress intended to exclude a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
("penalty" codified outside of Chapter 68 from also qualifying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.29 Tw
(as a "tax." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Sischo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. 165, 169) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(\(1923\) \(holding no inference can be made to imply an exclu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(sion when Congress enacts an "extension," rather than "re-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(striction," of a term\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
10.5 Tw
(Furthermore, the suggestion that we infer from) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.24 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) a categorical exclusion from the term "tax" of all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(non-Chapter 68 penalties violates Congress's express instruc-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(tions. In ) Tj
( ) Tj
(7806\(b\) of the Code, Congress has forbidden courts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(from deriving any "inference" or "implication" from the "lo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(cation or grouping of any particular section or provision or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(portion of this title." I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.85 Tw
(7806\(b\). The argument of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(Secretary and the dissent demands that we draw precisely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(such a forbidden "inference," for under their theory, the char-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(acter of a penalty turns entirely on the Chapter in which it is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("locat[ed].") Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.61 Tw
(Moreover, the Secretary's newly-minted position that Con-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(gress has implicitly excluded any "penalty" codified outside) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(of Chapter 68 from qualifying as a "tax" contradicts his previ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(ous interpretation of the AIA. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mobile Republican Assem-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.52 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Contrary to the dissent's contention, this conclusion does not "reject) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.48 Tw
(the legal force" of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\). When Congress expressly directs that the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.3 Tw
(location of a provision matters, as it has in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\), then a court need) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
0 Tw
(not ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(infer) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( anything and Congress's direction controls. But to adopt the posi-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.01 Tw
(tion of the Secretary and the dissent, a court would have to ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(infer) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( that an) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.31 Tw
(exaction is not to be treated as a tax from the exaction's place in the Code) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.34 Tw
(\(here Chapter 48 rather than Chapter 68\). It is this ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(inference) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( that the Code) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(forbids. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -399.55 m 300 -399.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(31) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
105 0 obj
4303
endobj
103 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 104 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 32 32
108 0 obj
<<
/Length 109 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.88 Tw
0 Tc
(bly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 353 F.3d 1357, the Secretary defended against a pre-) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.28 Tw
(enforcement challenge to an exaction imposed by I.R.C.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.63 Tw
(527\(j\), for failure to comply with the conditions attached to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(tax-exempt status. The district court held the AIA inapplica-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(ble for precisely the reasons that the Secretary now espouses,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.06 Tw
(i.e. because Congress had labeled the exaction a "penalty" and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.88 Tw
(codified it outside of Chapter 68. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(National Federation of) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.5 Tw
(Republican Assemblies v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 148 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(1273, 1280 \(S.D. Ala. 2001\). But the Secretary appealed,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(insisting that the AIA ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(did) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( apply because the challenged "pen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.35 Tw
(alty" was to be "assessed and collected in the same manner as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(taxes." Br. of Appellant at 32, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mobile Republican Assembly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(353 F.3d 1357 \(Feb. 18, 2003\) \(No. 02-16283\), 2003 WL) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(23469121. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and dismissed the suit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(because the exaction was based "squarely upon the explicit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(language of the Internal Revenue Code" and "form[ed] part of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the overall tax subsidy scheme." 353 F.3d at 1362 n.5.) Tj
12 -26 Td
0 Tw
(The Secretary fails to explain his change in position or even) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(refer to the Eleventh Circuit's holding that the AIA applies to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
("penalties" codified outside of Chapter 68. Instead, the Secre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(tary's argument boils down to his intuition, accepted by the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(Sixth Circuit and the dissent, that "Congress said one thing in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(sections 6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), and something else in sec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(tion 5000A [the individual mandate], and we should respect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(the difference." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___ [No. 10-2388,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(slip op. at 12].) Tj
12 -26 Td
.7 Tw
(But we can easily "respect the difference" in congressional) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.76 Tw
(wording without holding plaintiffs' challenge exempt from) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(the AIA bar. The legislative history of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.41 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) makes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(clear that Congress inserted that provision in the course of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(reorganizing and codifying the revenue laws in 1954, and did) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(so merely to declare explicitly what had been implicitthat) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(the term "tax" for purposes of the Code also refers to "penal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(ties" imposed by the Code. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( H.R. Rep. No. 83-1337, at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(A420 \(1954\) \(noting that predecessor to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.15 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) "con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(forms to the rules under existing law" and "contain[s] no) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(32) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
109 0 obj
3916
endobj
107 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 108 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 33 33
111 0 obj
<<
/Length 112 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.86 Tw
0 Tc
(material changes to existing law"\); S. Rep. No. 83-1622, at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.16 Tw
(595-96 \(1954\) \(same\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Given this history, we cannot interpret) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.96 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) as working any substantive change to the Code;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(rather, it simply "mak[es] explicit what" was already "im-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(plied" by the Code. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sischo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 262 U.S. at 169; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Walters) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 473 U.S. 305, 317-18) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.87 Tw
(\(1985\). That Congress did not repeat this clarifying language) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.23 Tw
(when it enacted the individual mandate, which is not part of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.71 Tw
(any reorganization or recodification of the Code, demon-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(strates nothing.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
.81 Tw
(Rather, Congress well knew that the Code had for decades) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(expressly provided that for purposes of the Secretary's assess-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.04 Tw
(ment power, the term "tax" "includ[es] . . . penalties." I.R.C.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.91 Tw
(6201\(a\). Specific direction that the term "tax" in the AIA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.03 Tw
(encompass the individual mandate "penalty" was therefore) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(unnecessary. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 741-42 \(noting that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(Congress intended AIA to adapt to evolving "complexity of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.2 Tw
(federal tax system"\). Put another way, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.2 Tw
(6201 specifically) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.22 Tw
(provides the Secretary with authority to make "assessments of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.18 Tw
(all taxes \(including . . . penalties\)," and the AIA specifically) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.92 Tw
(bars judicial interference with the Secretary's power to make) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.29 Tw
("assessment . . . of any tax." Given that Congress has not pro-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.03 Tw
(vided to the contrary, these two provisions taken together) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.08 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Congress originally inserted the text of ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(6665 as ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.08 Tw
(6659 of the 1954) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
4.83 Tw
(Code, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-289,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.01 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.01 Tw
(6659\(a\)\(2\), 68A Stat. 1, 827 \(1954\), but relocated it to ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.01 Tw
(6665 in 1989) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(without making any changes to it, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Omnibus Reconciliation Act of) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.09 Tw
(1989, Pub. L. No. 101-239, tit. VII, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.09 Tw
(7721\(a\), \(c\)\(2\), 103 Stat. 2106, 2399) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(\(1989\) \(codified at I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(6665\(a\)\). ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.28 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This does not mean that ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.28 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\), which includes Chapter 68 pen-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(alties within the term "tax" ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(throughout) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( the Code, serves no purpose. For) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.39 Tw
(example, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.39 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) may well be necessary to authorize a taxpayer to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.67 Tw
(pursue a civil suit for the illegal "collection of Federal tax" against a col-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.55 Tw
(lector who intentionally misinterprets the Code in collecting a Chapter 68) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.03 Tw
("penalty." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(7433\(a\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(Sylvester v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 978 F. Supp.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.69 Tw
(1186, 1189 \(E.D. Wis. 1997\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Le Premier Processors, Inc. v. United) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 775 F. Supp. 897, 902 n.6 \(E.D. La. 1990\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -327.95 m 300 -327.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(33) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
112 0 obj
4975
endobj
110 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 111 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 34 34
114 0 obj
<<
/Length 115 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.8 Tw
0 Tc
(mandate the conclusion that the AIA bars this suit seeking to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.54 Tw
("restrain" an "assessment" of the exaction challenged here,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(regardless of the exaction's label.) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
.77 Tw
(The Secretary's contrary "label" argument not only fails to) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.18 Tw
(persuade, it also requires a strained interpretation of the Code.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.7 Tw
(The Secretary urges us to take the view that Congress) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(intended the individual mandate to constitute the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exac-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.7 Tw
(tion imposed by the lengthy Internal Revenue Code that does) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.02 Tw
(not qualify as a "tax.") Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The consequences of this counterintui-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.16 Tw
(tive argument extend well beyond the AIA. For example,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.8 Tw
(accepting the Secretary's contention that the label "penalty") Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.42 Tw
(exempts the individual mandate from provisions applicable to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.41 Tw
("taxes" would inexplicably eliminate a host of procedural) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
9.16 Tw
(safeguards against abusive tax collection. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
6.8 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
6.8 Tw
(7217\(a\) \(prohibiting executive branch officials from) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.64 Tw
(requesting IRS officials to "conduct or terminate an audit . . .) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.67 Tw
(with respect to the tax liability" of any particular taxpayer\),) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(7433\(a\) \(providing civil damages for unauthorized "collection) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.1 Tw
(of Federal tax"\), 7435 \(providing civil damages for unautho-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.92 Tw
(rized enticement of disclosure concerning the "collection of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.31 Tw
(any tax"\). We will not presume that Congress intended such) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.81 Tw
(an anomalous result, and we certainly cannot infer this intent) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(on the basis of a mere label.) Tj
144.498 -26.3 Td
(C.) Tj
-132.498 -26.2 Td
1.14 Tw
(The Secretary's remaining contentions, some of which are) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-2 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
3.73 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Secretary yet again employs faulty reasoning to reach this) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.98 Tw
(remarkable conclusion. He contends that three other exactions labeled as) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
4.33 Tw
(penalties and codified ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(outside) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Chapter 68 I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.33 Tw
(5114\(c\)\(3\),) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.49 Tw
(5684\(b\), 5761\(e\) constitute "taxes" for purposes of the AIA because) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.98 Tw
(they shall be "assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.25 Tw
(as provided in section 6665\(a\)." But the only meaningful difference) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.32 Tw
(between these provisions and the individual mandate is the addition of the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.24 Tw
(phrase, "as provided in section 6665\(a\)," which refers only to the previous) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.76 Tw
(clause and does not incorporate the separate, unreferenced parts of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(6665\(a\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -376.95 m 300 -376.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(34) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
115 0 obj
3925
endobj
113 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 114 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 35 35
117 0 obj
<<
/Length 118 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.5 Tw
0 Tc
(adopted by the dissent, are brief and unsupported by any stat-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(ute or case law. All are policy arguments, relying on the Sec-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.18 Tw
(retary's view of what the 2010 Congress, in enacting the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.05 Tw
(individual mandate, assertedly "would regard" as "mak[ing]) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.26 Tw
(sense," or "would not have wanted," or as the dissent would) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.57 Tw
(have it, what the 2010 Congress "intended." According to the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.32 Tw
(Secretary and the dissent, these policy concerns demonstrate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
(that the 2010 Congress could not have wanted the AIA to bar) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(pre-enforcement challenges to the individual mandate.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.07 Tw
(The most fundamental difficulty with this contention is its) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.22 Tw
(focus on the "intent" of the 2010 Congress in enacting the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(individual mandate. Our task is not to divine the intent of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.32 Tw
(2010 Congress but simply to determine whether the term) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
("tax" in the AIA encompasses the exaction challenged here.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.69 Tw
(To resolve this question, we must look to the text of the AIA) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(and the intent ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(of the Congresses that enacted and re-enacted) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.81 Tw
(that statute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, just as the Supreme Court has done in its AIA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(cases. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(South Carolina v. Regan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 367, 375) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(\(1984\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 741-42; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(191.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.89 Tw
(Once we conclude that the term "tax" in the AIA does) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(encompass a challenged exaction, we can go no further. For) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(the terms of the AIA declare that courts, save for specific stat-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(utory exceptions, not applicable here, may entertain ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(no) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( suit) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(any) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( tax." 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.88 Tw
(7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). This expan-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.94 Tw
(sive language leaves no room for a court to carve out excep-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(tions based on the policy ramifications of a particular pre-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.62 Tw
(enforcement challenge. The Supreme Court said as much in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.61 Tw
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, repudiating its old cases that had embraced a "de-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(parture from the literal reading of the Act" based on "excep-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(tional circumstances." 416 U.S. at 743. In doing so, the Court) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(instructed that courts must give the AIA "literal force, without) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.22 Tw
(regard to the . . . nature of the pre-enforcement challenge." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 742.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(35) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
118 0 obj
3876
endobj
116 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 117 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 36 36
120 0 obj
<<
/Length 121 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.87 Tw
0 Tc
(Of course, the 2010 Congress could have exempted the) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(individual mandate from the AIA. But to date it has not pro-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.24 Tw
(vided for such an exemption, and surely we cannot hold it has) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(implicitly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( done so. To infer an intent on the part of the 2010) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(Congress to exempt this pre-enforcement challenge from the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.42 Tw
(otherwise-applicable AIA bar would be tantamount to finding) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.53 Tw
(an implicit repeal of that bar; such an approach would violate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.07 Tw
(the "cardinal rule" that "repeals by implication are not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.31 Tw
(favored." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(TVA v. Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 437 U.S. 153, 189 \(1978\) \(applying the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(implicit "repeal" doctrine to the TVA's argument that "the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.48 Tw
(Act cannot reasonably be interpreted as applying to [the chal-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.92 Tw
(lenged] federal project"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(United States v. United) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.61 Tw
(Continental Tuna Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 425 U.S. 170, 169 \(1976\) \(holding) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.45 Tw
(that courts must be "hesitant to infer that Congress," in enact-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.01 Tw
(ing a later statute, "intended to authorize evasion of a [prior]) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.08 Tw
(statute"\). Given that the terms of the AIA encompass the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.87 Tw
(exaction imposed by ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.87 Tw
(5000A\(b\), the "only permissible justi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(fication" for exempting that exaction is if the individual man-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.52 Tw
(date is "irreconcilable" with the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 437 U.S. at 189.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Obviously, it is not.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.12 Tw
(Accordingly, it is simply irrelevant what the 2010 Congress) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(would have thought about the AIA; all that matters is whether) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(the 2010 Congress imposed a tax. If it did, then the AIA bars) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(pre-enforcement challenges to that tax. After all, were we to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(embrace the argument pressed by the Secretary and the dis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(sent that the AIA applies only when a subsequent Congress) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(has exhibited an intent for it to apply, we would impermiss-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(ibly render the AIA little more than a non-binding suggestion) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(to future Congresses, devoid of independent legal force. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Tuna Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 425 U.S. at 169 \(holding that courts must require) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.32 Tw
(explicit "expression by Congress" that it intends the "compro-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.34 Tw
(mise or abandonment of previously articulated policies"\). The) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(Supreme Court has rejected this very view, holding that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.91 Tw
(AIA establishes a nearly irrebuttable presumption that no tax) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.21 Tw
(may be challenged in any pre-enforcement action. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bob) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 743-46.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(36) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
121 0 obj
3887
endobj
119 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 106 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 120 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 37 37
123 0 obj
<<
/Length 124 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(Even taken on their own terms, however, the proffered pol-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(icy arguments fail. Neither the Secretary nor the dissent has) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(identified any persuasive evidence that the 2010 Congress in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.57 Tw
(fact intended to permit pre-enforcement challenges to the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.04 Tw
(individual mandate.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The best evidence of what Congress) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(intended, of course, is the legislation it actually enacted. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(Carcieri v. Salazar) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 129 S. Ct. 1058, 1066-67 \(2009\). Con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.27 Tw
(gress could have enacted an exemption from the AIA bar; it) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.21 Tw
(did so in other instances. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.21 Tw
(4961\(c\)\(1\)) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.4 Tw
(\(second-tier tax exempt from AIA\), 6703\(c\)\(1\) \(penalty) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.38 Tw
(exempt from AIA upon satisfying statutory conditions\),) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.33 Tw
(7421\(a\) \(listing several exactions and procedures exempt) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.03 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Secretary offers only congressional floor statements as evidence) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.51 Tw
(of this supposed congressional intent. In those statements, two Senators) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.03 Tw
(contemplated a potential onslaught of challenges to the individual mandate) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.58 Tw
(but, as the Secretary puts it, "never suggested that the only way for an) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.77 Tw
(individual to obtain review would be . . . [through] a refund action." The) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(Supreme Court has long held that such statements are of little assistance) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.69 Tw
(in ascertaining congressional intent. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Grove City College v. Bell) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
0 Tw
(465 U.S 555, 567 \(1984\). Moreover, the floor statements relied on here are) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.78 Tw
(irrelevant, because at most they signal an acknowledgment of potential) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
3.81 Tw
(lawsuits, not an endorsement of challenges seeking pre-enforcement) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(injunctive relief. ) Tj
10 -16.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(The dissent goes even a step further than the Secretary, inferring an) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(AIA exception because drafts of what became the Affordable Care Act) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.38 Tw
(had previously called the challenged exaction a "tax." The) Tj
( Supreme Court) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.7 Tw
(has warned against such an approach, cautioning courts not to read much) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.04 Tw
(into Congress's unexplained decision to change wording in a final bill. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.72 Tw
(Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 331 U.S. 40, 61 \(1947\) \(noting that the "inter-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.42 Tw
(pretation of statutes cannot safely be made to rest upon mute intermediate) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.81 Tw
(legislative maneuvers"\). Moreover, the dissent errs in suggesting that our) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.21 Tw
(holding "ignores" this wording change; rather, we simply hold that change) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.45 Tw
(irrelevant ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(to the AIA bar) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. Congress's decision to call the challenged exac-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.12 Tw
(tion a "penalty" may affect its treatment under sections of the Code that) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.58 Tw
(expressly distinguish "taxes" from "penalties," e.g. those pertaining to the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.95 Tw
(timing of interest accrual. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Latterman v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 872 F.2d 564,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(569-70 \(3d Cir. 1989\). Or Congress's wording change may have simply) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
0 Tw
(carried political benefits. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Florida v. HHS) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1142-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.42 Tw
(43 \(N.D. Fla. 2010\). No evidence, however, indicates that the change was) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(intended to exempt the individual mandate from the AIA. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -167.55 m 300 -167.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(37) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
124 0 obj
4927
endobj
122 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 123 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 38 38
127 0 obj
<<
/Length 128 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.53 Tw
0 Tc
(from AIA\). But Congress has provided so such exemption) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.71 Tw
(here. Alternatively, Congress could have crafted a specific) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.57 Tw
(route to pre-enforcement judicial review. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Sigmon Coal) Tj
0 -13 Td
.21 Tw
(Co. v. Apfel,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 226 F.3d 291, 301 \(4th Cir. 2000\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Clin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.48 Tw
(ton v. City of New York) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 524 U.S. 417, 428-29 \(1998\). Again,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(it did not do so here. Thus, Congress knows how to exempt) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.52 Tw
(a specific exaction from the AIA bar, and that it did not do) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.47 Tw
(so here strongly undermines the contention that Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(intended such an exemption.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.53 Tw
(Nor do the Secretary's policy arguments, which the dissent) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(embraces, demonstrate that the AIA should not apply here.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(The Secretary contends that "it makes sense that Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(would regard it as unnecessary to apply the AIA bar" to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(individual mandate because, in the mandate, Congress prohib-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(ited the Secretary from using his "principal tools" to "collect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.05 Tw
(unpaid taxes." Maybe so. But the Secretary's argument) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.81 Tw
(ignores the fact that the AIA bars challenges seeking to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.77 Tw
(restrain the "assessment ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(or) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( collection of any tax." I.R.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.71 Tw
(7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). Congress's intent to waive ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(some) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(of the Secretary's ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(collection) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( tools does not in any way evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(dence that it would want to invite pre-enforcement challenges) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(to the Secretary's remaining collection powers or all of his) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.37 Tw
(assessment authority. And the Supreme Court has left no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.93 Tw
(doubt that restraining even "one method of collection" trig-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(gers the AIA's prohibition on injunctive suits. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(v. Am. Friends Serv. Comm.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 419 U.S. 7, 10 \(1974\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.1 Tw
(Alternatively, the Secretary argues that because the individ-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.72 Tw
(ual mandate "is `integral' to the [Affordable Care Act's]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions" and has a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
("delayed . . . effective date," Congress would have "wanted") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.37 Tw
(early resolution of challenges to it and "did not intend the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(AIA to prohibit pre-enforcement challenges." This argument) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(ignores that any holding that the AIA bar does not apply to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(the individual mandate might have serious long-term conse-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(quences for the Secretary's revenue collection. The Congres-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.57 Tw
(sional Budget Office projects that 34 million people will) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(38) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
128 0 obj
3867
endobj
126 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 127 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 39 39
130 0 obj
<<
/Length 131 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.36 Tw
0 Tc
(remain uninsured in 2014 and thus potentially subject to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.53 Tw
(challenged "penalty." Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(CBO Director, to Hon. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(at table 4 \(Dec. 19, 2009\). To exempt the individual mandate) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.58 Tw
(from the AIA would invite millions of taxpayerseach and) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.87 Tw
(every yearto refuse to pay the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.87 Tw
(5000A\(b\) exaction and) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(instead preemptively challenge the IRS's assessment.) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
1.52 Tw
(Moreover, some of those taxpayers will undoubtedly pos-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
3.22 Tw
(sess a host of non-constitutional, individual grounds upon) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.12 Tw
(which to challenge the assessment of the ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.12 Tw
(5000A\(b\) exac-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.77 Tw
(tion. As former IRS Commissioners warned in a recent brief,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.61 Tw
(allowing these suits would severely hamper IRS collection) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(efforts. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Brief for Mortimer Caplin & Sheldon Cohen as) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.71 Tw
(Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees at 12-15, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Seven-Sky v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(Holder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 11-5047 \(D.C. Cir. July 1, 2011\). This would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(threaten to interrupt the IRS's collection of $4 billion annu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(ally from the challenged exaction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Letter from Elmendorf) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(to Reid at table 4. Moreover, those challenges could impede) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.71 Tw
(the collection of other income taxes by preemptively) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.21 Tw
(resolvingin litigation over the exaction imposed by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.07 Tw
(5000A\(b\)issues basic to all tax collection, such as a tax-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(payer's adjusted gross income.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.38 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(2\)\(B\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(C.I.R. v. Sunnen) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 333 U.S. 591, 597-98 \(1948\) \(issue preclu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(sion "applicable in the federal income tax field"\).) Tj
12 -25.9 Td
1.85 Tw
(Thus, while the Secretary and the dissent may be correct) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(that we could resolve this one lawsuit with few adverse reve-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(nue consequences, the holding necessary to reach the merits) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(here could, in the long-run, wreak havoc on the Secretary's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(ability to collect revenue. If Congress is persuaded by the) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.11 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Other issues raised by the individual mandate that are common to) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
10.04 Tw
(many taxes include certain deductions from income taxes) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
25.26 Tw
(\() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
25.26 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(4\)\(C\)\(i\)\), child dependency determinations) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
3.15 Tw
(\() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.15 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(A\)\), joint liability for spouses \() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.15 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\)\), the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
8.42 Tw
(income level triggering a taxpayer's duty to file a return) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
10.36 Tw
(\() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
10.36 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(2\)\(B\)\), and family size for deduction purposes) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(\() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -411.25 m 300 -411.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(39) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
131 0 obj
4291
endobj
129 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 130 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 40 40
133 0 obj
<<
/Length 134 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.78 Tw
0 Tc
(Secretary's present litigation position, it can craft a specific) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.18 Tw
(AIA exception for constitutional challenges to the individual) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.05 Tw
(mandate. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.05 Tw
(7428\(a\) \(inserting, after ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, an) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.42 Tw
(exemption for the exact sort of pre-enforcement challenge the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court had held barred by the AIA\). Until it does) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.4 Tw
(so, however, we are bound by its directive that we entertain) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
("no suit" restraining the assessment of "any tax." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(7421\(a\).) Tj
142.17 -26.4 Td
(IV.) Tj
-130.17 -26.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(Having dispensed with the Secretary's arguments, we turn) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(finally to the arguments pressed by plaintiffs.) Tj
144.168 -26.3 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.3 Td
.92 Tw
(Plaintiffs initially contend that the AIA bar does not apply) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.71 Tw
(because this "case does not seek to restrain the assessment or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.48 Tw
(collection of a tax." The plaintiff university in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ten-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.65 Tw
(dered precisely the same initial argument. Its "first" conten-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.21 Tw
(tion was that the AIA did not apply because its suit was not) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.67 Tw
(brought "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or col-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(lection of any tax." 416 U.S. at 738. The Supreme Court held) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.85 Tw
(that the university's complaint "belie[d] [this] notion." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( So) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.85 Tw
(it is here. For, in their complaint, plaintiffs characterize the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.95 Tw
(individual mandate as a "tax" and ask for a judicial invalida-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(tion of this "tax[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.14 Tw
(] upon citizens who choose not to purchase) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.04 Tw
(something such as health insurance." They assert that the indi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.68 Tw
(vidual mandate provision, although labeled a "penalty," is a) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.42 Tw
("tax" not apportioned as required by Article I of the Constitu-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.32 Tw
(tion, and a "tax" beyond the scope of congressional power) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(under the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.95 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, plaintiffs' complaint belies their initial conten-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.42 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Moreover, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( forecloses an argument that the AIA allows a) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.97 Tw
(challenge to the requirement that an individual maintain insurance, i.e.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(5000A\(a\), separate from a challenge to the penalty for noncompliance) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.48 Tw
(with this requirement, i.e. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(5000A\(b\). Some district courts have accepted) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(40) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
134 0 obj
4005
endobj
132 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 133 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 41 41
136 0 obj
<<
/Length 137 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.03 Tw
0 Tc
(Plaintiffs' remaining contention as to why the AIA does not) Tj
-12 -14 Td
.13 Tw
(bar their challenge to the individual mandate is that it imposes) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.54 Tw
(an unconstitutional regulatory penalty "not designed to raise) Tj
0 -14 Td
.11 Tw
(revenue," which assertedly violates the Commerce Clause, the) Tj
0 -14 Td
.34 Tw
(Taxing and Spending Clause, and unspecified "other constitu-) Tj
0 -14 Td
.67 Tw
(tional rights." The problem with this argument is that a claim) Tj
0 -14 Td
.33 Tw
(that an exaction is an unconstitutional regulatory penalty does) Tj
0 -14 Td
.44 Tw
(not insulate a challenge to it from the AIA bar. Again, in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.3 Tw
(Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court confronted and rejected precisely this argu-) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment.) Tj
12 -27.8 Td
2.21 Tw
(Like plaintiffs here, the university in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( asserted) Tj
-12 -14 Td
.25 Tw
(that the IRS's "threatened action" would "violate [its constitu-) Tj
0 -14 Td
2.07 Tw
(tional] rights." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 736 \(asserting various First and Four-) Tj
0 -14 Td
.6 Tw
(teenth Amendment rights\). In fact, in its brief to the Supreme) Tj
0 -14 Td
.55 Tw
(Court, the university made an argument identical to that here.) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.54 Tw
(The university maintained that "what the government would) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.88 Tw
(have the University do . . . involves not revenue but rather) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.34 Tw
(unconstitutional compulsion," Brief for Petitioner at 28, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob) Tj
0 -14 Td
2.22 Tw
(Jones Univ. v. Simon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. 725 \(1973\) \(No. 72-1470\),) Tj
0 -14 Td
.53 Tw
(1973 WL 172321. This mirrors the plaintiffs' contention here) Tj
0 -14 Td
.15 Tw
(that the mandate is "not designed to raise revenue" but instead) Tj
0 -14 Td
.17 Tw
(to unconstitutionally "compel[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.17 Tw
(]" specific behavior. Just as the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -14 Td
.33 Tw
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court held the university's argument foreclosed by) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.18 Tw
(the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 416 U.S. at 740-41, we must hold) Tj
0 -14 Td
1.2 Tw
(plaintiffs' identical argument foreclosed by those cases.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -27.5 Td
2.94 Tw
(this argument. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep't of Health &) Tj
0 -11.9 Td
.74 Tw
(Human Servs.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 695 \(M.D. Pa. 2011\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.76 Tw
(Law Center v. Obama) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882, 891 \(E.D. Mich. 2010\). But) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.08 Tw
(invalidation of the individual mandate would necessarily preclude the Sec-) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.9 Tw
(retary from exercising his statutory authority to assess the accompanying) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.64 Tw
(penalty. Moreover, in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court held that the AIA barred a) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1.73 Tw
(challenge to the IRS's interpretation of I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.73 Tw
(501\(c\)\(3\), even though) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
2.44 Tw
(that provision itself did not impose any tax; only when coupled with) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
.37 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.37 Tw
(501\(a\) \(making a 501\(c\)\(3\) organization exempt from income taxes\) did) Tj
0 -11.8 Td
1 Tw
(tax consequences result. 416 U.S. at 738. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -370.55 m 300 -370.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(41) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
137 0 obj
4275
endobj
135 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 136 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 42 42
139 0 obj
<<
/Length 140 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.47 Tw
0 Tc
(For in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court not only reaffirmed) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases as setting forth the proper course by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.08 Tw
(which a taxpayer could challenge an exaction but also) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.02 Tw
(explained that it had "abandoned . . . distinctions" between) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.86 Tw
("regulatory and revenue-raising taxes." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 741 n.12. The) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(Court held that the AIA bar applied even to an exaction) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.07 Tw
(implementing a social policy unless a plaintiff could demon-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.4 Tw
(strate that the IRS "has no legal basis" in the Code for assess-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.15 Tw
(ing the exaction or seeks an objective "unrelated to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(protection of the revenues." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 740. Plaintiffs cannot and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.83 Tw
(do not make any contention that the IRS has "no legal basis") Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(in the Code for assessing the penalty in ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.14 Tw
(5000A or that this) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(exaction is "unrelated to the protection of the revenues.") Tj
12 -26.5 Td
.77 Tw
(In sum, we find plaintiffs' argument that the AIA does not) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(apply here wholly unpersuasive.) Tj
144.498 -26.5 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26.4 Td
1.5 Tw
(Perhaps recognizing the weakness of their argument as to) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(the inapplicability of the AIA, plaintiffs principally contend) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.83 Tw
(that a narrow judicially-created exception to the AIA permits) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.04 Tw
(pursuit of their action seeking a pre-enforcement injunction) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(against enforcement of the individual mandate.) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
1.4 Tw
(That exception allows a plaintiff to escape the AIA bar if) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.51 Tw
(he demonstrates that \(1\) equity jurisdiction otherwise exists,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(i.e. irreparable injury results if no injunction issues, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.18 Tw
(\(2\) "it is clear that under no circumstances could the [Secre-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(tary] ultimately prevail." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Williams Packing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 370 U.S. at 7.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.71 Tw
(When making the latter determination, a court must take "the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.11 Tw
(most liberal view of the law and the facts" in favor of the Sec-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.5 Tw
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( The Court has carved out one other exception to the AIA for "ag-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.56 Tw
(grieved parties for whom [Congress] has not provided an alternative rem-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.02 Tw
(edy." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Regan) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. at 378. That exception clearly does not assist) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.34 Tw
(plaintiffs because, as the Secretary concedes, they may challenge the indi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(vidual mandate in a refund action. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 746. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.45 m 300 -432.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(42) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
140 0 obj
3985
endobj
138 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 125 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 139 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 43 43
142 0 obj
<<
/Length 143 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.09 Tw
0 Tc
(retary. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( It is difficult to see how any irreparable injury justi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(fies the injunctive relief requested here. But even assuming) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(equity jurisdiction does exist here, plaintiffs cannot meet the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.58 Tw
(stringent standard of proving with certainty that the Secretary) Tj
0 -13 Td
.1 Tw
(has "no chance of success on the merits." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(at 745.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.25 Tw
(In rejecting the university's contention that it would prevail) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(on the merits, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court explained that the sole) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(case in which a plaintiff had met this exacting standard was) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 284 U.S. 498 \(1932\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(That case is a far cry from the case at hand. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Standard Nut) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(a tax collector attempted to assess a tax that federal courts had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(already held in a proper ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(post-enforcement) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( action did not apply) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(to the plaintiff's product. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 510. By contrast, to date, no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(court has even considered the validity of the individual man-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(date in a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(post-enforcement) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( action, let alone held it invalid in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(such a proceeding. Moreover, in pre-enforcement actions, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(courts of appeals have divided as to the constitutionality of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(the individual mandate. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare ) Tj
(Florida v. HHS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.51 Tw
(___ \(11th Cir. 2011\) \(invalidating mandate\) ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with ) Tj
(Thomas) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d ___ \(upholding mandate\). Given this history) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(and the presumption of constitutionality a federal court must) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(afford every congressional enactment, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(United States v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 529 U.S. 598, 607 \(2000\), we can hardly hold that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.39 Tw
(the Secretary has "no chance of success on the merits." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 745.) Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(V.) Tj
-132.168 -26 Td
2.65 Tw
(In closing, we recognize "that Congress has imposed" a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.31 Tw
(potentially "harsh regime" on some taxpayers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 749.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(However, as in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the question of whether these con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(cerns "merit consideration" is a matter for Congress to weigh.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 750. Unless and until Congress tells us otherwise, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(must respect the AIA's bar to the "intrusion of the injunctive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(power of the courts into the administration of the revenue.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Regan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. at 388 \(O'Connor, J., concurring\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(43) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
143 0 obj
4186
endobj
141 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 142 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 44 44
146 0 obj
<<
/Length 147 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.3 Tw
0 Tc
(For all these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(court and remand the case to that court to dismiss for lack of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(subject-matter jurisdiction.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
150.276 -26.8 Td
(VACATED AND REMANDED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-150.276 -26.8 Td
(WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring:) Tj
146.502 -26.8 Td
(I.) Tj
-134.502 -26.8 Td
0 Tw
(I concur in Judge Motz's fine opinion holding that the Anti-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.1 Tw
(Injunction Act applies to this case. I therefore agree that it) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(should be remanded to the district court for dismissal. ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
.2 Tw
(I note that my distinguished colleague, after vigorously dis-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
3.28 Tw
(senting from the majority's holding that the AIA applies,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(chose to exercise his prerogative to address the merits.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( While) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.53 Tw
(I think that his position on the Commerce Clause is persua-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.93 Tw
(sive, were I to reach the merits, I would uphold the constitu-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.22 Tw
(tionality of the Affordable Care Act on the basis that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.07 Tw
(Congress had the authority to enact the individual and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.04 Tw
(employer mandates under its plenary taxing power.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( However,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.5 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.58 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority opinion vacates the district court's decision and remands) Tj
-10 -11.5 Td
.73 Tw
(plaintiffs' lawsuit for dismissal. Judge Davis dissents from the majority's) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.39 Tw
(dismissal of plaintiffs' suit on AIA grounds; nonetheless, on the merits,) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(he, too, would dismiss plaintiffs' lawsuit. ) Tj
10 -14.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.83 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Justices and judges have previously spoken on the merits after stating) Tj
-10 -11.5 Td
.78 Tw
(that the court lacked jurisdiction; my approach today is therefore nothing) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.05 Tw
(new. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 130 S. Ct. 1758,) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.17 Tw
(1777 \(2010\) \(Ginsburg, J., dissenting\) \("The Court errs in addressing an) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.72 Tw
(issue not ripe for judicial review . . . . I would dismiss the petition as) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.97 Tw
(improvidently granted. Were I to reach the merits, I would adhere to the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.85 Tw
(strict limitations the Federal Arbitration Act \(FAA\), 9 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.85 Tw
(1 et seq.,) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.39 Tw
(places on judicial review of arbitral awards. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.39 Tw
(10. Accordingly, I would) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.14 Tw
(affirm the judgment of the Second Circuit, which rejected petitioners' plea) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.32 Tw
(for vacation of the arbitrators' decision."\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(481 U.S. 1, 23 \(1987\) \(Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment\) \("Were) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.71 Tw
(I to reach the merits I would reverse for the reasons stated in the concur-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -302.85 m 300 -302.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(44) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
147 0 obj
3934
endobj
145 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 146 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 45 45
149 0 obj
<<
/Length 150 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3 Tw
0 Tc
(my conclusion that the mandates are \(constitutional\) taxes) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(inevitably leads back to the AIA's bar to this case.) Tj
144.504 -27.2 Td
(II.) Tj
-.336 -27.1 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -27.1 Td
.72 Tw
(Plaintiffs contend that "[t]he Taxing and Spending or Gen-) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
.33 Tw
(eral Welfare Clause does not vest Congress with the authority) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.26 Tw
(to enact the mandates." Opening Brief of Appellants Liberty) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.3 Tw
(University, Michele G. Waddell and Joanne J. Merrill at 40,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.7 Td
1 Tw
(Liberty Univ. v. Geithner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 10-2347. I disagree. The indi-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.66 Tw
(vidual and employer mandate provisions are independently) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.05 Tw
(authorized by Congress's constitutional power to "lay and) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.18 Tw
(collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.78 Tw
(and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(the United States . . . ." U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(8, cl. 1. ) Tj
12 -27.1 Td
2.24 Tw
("A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
.81 Tw
(used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.71 Tw
(of the government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Butler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 297 U.S. 1, 61) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.93 Tw
(\(1936\). Stated differently, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.25 Tw
(upon individuals or property for the purpose of supporting the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.96 Tw
(government." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. New York) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 315 U.S. 510, 515-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.06 Tw
(16 \(1942\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(New Jersey v. Anderson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 203 U.S. 483,) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(492 \(1906\)\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.9 Td
.79 Tw
(ring opinions of Justices Brennan and Stevens, in which) Tj
( I join. But I can) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.78 Tw
(find no basis for the District Court's unwarranted assumption of jurisdic-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.85 Tw
(tion over the subject matter of this lawsuit, and upon that ground alone I) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.43 Tw
(would reverse the decision below."\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Veterans for Common Sense v. Shin-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(seki) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 644 F.3d 845, 900 \(9th Cir. 2011\) \(Kozinski, J., dissenting\) \(deter-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.72 Tw
(mining that court lacked jurisdiction but also analyzing claims on their) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.11 Tw
(merits\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Patel v. Holder) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 563 F.3d 565, 569 \(7th Cir. 2009\) \(majority opin-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.04 Tw
(ion doing same\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(Helvering v. Davis) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301 U.S. 619, 639-40 \(1937\) \(not-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.16 Tw
(ing the belief of Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, Stone, and Roberts that the) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.68 Tw
(case should be dismissed but nevertheless reaching the merits in an opin-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(ion authored by Justice Cardozo\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -361.95 m 300 -361.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(45) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
150 0 obj
3789
endobj
148 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 149 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 46 46
152 0 obj
<<
/Length 153 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.24 Tw
0 Tc
(Before analyzing whether the exactions in question were) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.66 Tw
(authorized under Congress's taxing power, it is useful first to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.25 Tw
(clarify that neither an exaction's label nor its regulatory intent) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(or effect is germane to the constitutional inquiry. To deter-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.71 Tw
(mine whether an exaction constitutes a tax, the Supreme) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(Court has instructed us to look not at what an exaction is cal-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.57 Tw
(led but instead at what it does. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck &) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.67 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 U.S. 359, 363 \(1941\) \(stating that when "passing on) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.45 Tw
(the constitutionality of a tax law," a court is "`concerned only) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.06 Tw
(with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.56 Tw
(form of descriptive words which may be applied to it'"\)) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.33 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lawrence v. State Tax Comm'n) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 286 U.S. 276, 280) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.5 Tw
(\(1932\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(United States v. New York) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 315 U.S. at 515-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.02 Tw
(16 \(stating that an exaction meeting the definition of a tax will) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.78 Tw
(be construed as such regardless of "whatever name it may be) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(called"\). This makes sense, given that the Constitution itself) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.6 Tw
(uses four different terms to refer to the concept of taxation:) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(taxes, imposts, duties, and excises. U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.06 Tw
(8, cl.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(1.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.3 Td
1.16 Tw
(Accordingly, the Supreme Court has characterized legisla-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.77 Tw
(tive acts as "taxes" without regard to the labels used by Con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.13 Tw
(gress. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Sotelo) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 436 U.S. 268, 275) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.87 Tw
(\(1978\) \(deeming an exaction labeled a "penalty" in the Inter-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.41 Tw
(nal Revenue Code a tax for bankruptcy purposes\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(License) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.11 Tw
(Tax Cases) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 72 U.S. \(5 Wall.\) 462, 470-71 \(1866\) \(sustaining) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.48 Tw
(under the taxing power a federal statute requiring the pur-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(chase of a license before engaging in certain businesses and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.54 Tw
(stating that "the granting of a license . . . must be regarded as) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.91 Tw
(nothing more than a mere form of imposing a tax"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.14 Tw
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 99 F.3d 573, 583 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.86 Tw
(1996\) \(holding that, for purposes of the AIA, "premiums") Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(constituted taxes\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Congress also does not have to invoke the source of authority for its) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.4 Tw
(enactments. "The question of the constitutionality of action taken by Con-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.06 Tw
(gress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exer-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(cise." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 333 U.S. 138, 144 \(1948\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(46) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
153 0 obj
4252
endobj
151 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 152 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 47 47
155 0 obj
<<
/Length 156 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.35 Tw
0 Tc
(Further, a taxregardless of its label"does not cease to) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.18 Tw
(be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even def-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(initely deters the activities taxed." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Sanchez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.59 Tw
(340 U.S. 42, 44 \(1950\). As long as a statute is "productive of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.42 Tw
(some revenue," Congress may exercise its taxing power with-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.82 Tw
(out "collateral inquiry as to the measure of the regulatory) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.42 Tw
(effect [of the statute in question]." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sonzinsky v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.64 Tw
(300 U.S. 506, 514 \(1937\). And if "the legislation enacted has) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.77 Tw
(some reasonable relation to the exercise of the taxing author-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.12 Tw
(ity conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.01 Tw
(because of the supposed motives which induced it." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(States v. Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 249 U.S. 86, 93 \(1919\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.53 Tw
(I recognize that some cases from the 1920s and 1930s sug-) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.58 Tw
(gest that taxes are either regulatory or revenue-raising and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.11 Tw
(that the former are unconstitutional. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. Drexel) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(Furniture Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. 20, 37-44 \(1922\) \(holding that a tax) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.88 Tw
(on goods made by child labor was an unconstitutional pen-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.75 Tw
(alty\). However, both older and newer opinions indicate that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.14 Tw
(the revenue-versus-regulatory distinction was short-lived and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.63 Tw
(is now defunct. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Kahriger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.26 Tw
(22, 28 \(1953\) \(upholding tax on bookmakers and stating, "It) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.11 Tw
(is conceded that a federal excise tax does not cease to be valid) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.47 Tw
(merely because it discourages or deters the activities taxed."\),) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
4 Tw
(overruled in part on other grounds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Marchetti v. United) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.73 Tw
(States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 390 U.S. 39 \(1968\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sonzinsky) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 300 U.S. at 514 \(1937) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.08 Tw
(case upholding a tax on firearm dealers despite registration) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.95 Tw
(provision and alleged regulatory effects\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 249 U.S.) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.22 Tw
(at 95 \(1919 case upholding the Narcotic Drugs Act, which) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.96 Tw
(taxed and regulated sales of narcotics\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McCray v. United) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.2 Tw
(States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 195 U.S. 27, 59 \(1904\) \(upholding tax on colored mar-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.03 Tw
(garine and stating, "Since . . . the taxing power conferred by) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.16 Tw
(the Constitution knows no limits except those expressly stated) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.27 Tw
(in that instrument, it must follow, if a tax be within the lawful) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.92 Tw
(power, the exertion of that power may not be judicially) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(restrained because of the results to arise from its exercise."\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.03 Tw
(It is not surprising that this distinction did not endure, given) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.07 Tw
(that taxes can, and do, both regulate and generate revenue at) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(47) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
156 0 obj
4328
endobj
154 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 155 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 48 48
158 0 obj
<<
/Length 159 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.88 Tw
0 Tc
(the same time. Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
2.88 Tw
(Sonzinsky) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, "[e]very tax is in some measure regulatory. To) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.32 Tw
(some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(activity taxed as compared with others not taxed. But a tax is) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.67 Tw
(not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect . . . .") Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(300 U.S. at 513. And "[i]n like manner every rebate from a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.85 Tw
(tax when conditioned upon conduct is in some measure a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.54 Tw
(temptation. But to hold that motive or temptation is equiva-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(lent to coercion is to plunge the law in endless difficulties.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301 U.S. 548, 589-90) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(\(1937\). Accordingly, in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones University v. Simon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(U.S. 725 \(1974\), the Supreme Court recognized that, while in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(some early cases it "drew what it saw at the time as distinc-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.01 Tw
(tions between regulatory and revenue-raising taxes," the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.02 Tw
(Court "subsequently abandoned such distinctions." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 741) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(n.12, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(overruled in part on other grounds by ) Tj
(South Carolina) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(v. Ragan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 367, 379 \(1984\).) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.11 Tw
(Courts, therefore, do not look to labels, regulatory intent, or) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.24 Tw
(regulatory effect. Instead, we must consider whether some-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(thing that operates as a tax is authorized under Congress's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(taxing power, which has been described as "very extensive,") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.04 Tw
(License Tax Cases) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 72 U.S. at 471, and indeed "virtually with-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(out limitation." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Ptasynski) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 462 U.S. 74, 79) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1983\). As Justice Cardozo recognized in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helvering) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
22 -26.7 Td
.47 Tw
(The discretion [to tax and spend for the general wel-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.85 Tw
(fare] belongs to Congress, unless the choice is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, [or] not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.48 Tw
("When such a contention comes here we naturally) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.65 Tw
(require a showing that by no reasonable possibility) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(can the challenged legislation fall within the wide) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(range of discretion permitted to the Congress.") Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
(301 U.S. at 640-41 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Butler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 297 U.S. at 67\). ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(48) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
159 0 obj
3660
endobj
157 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 144 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 158 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 49 49
161 0 obj
<<
/Length 162 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.22 Tw
0 Tc
(There are essentially three features that a tax must exhibit) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(to be constitutional. First, to pass constitutional muster, a tax) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.12 Tw
(must bear "some reasonable relation" to raising revenue.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 249 U.S. at 93. The amount of revenue raised is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(irrelevant: A tax does not cease to be one "even though the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(pose of the tax may be secondary." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sanchez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 340 U.S. at 44) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(\(citations omitted\). Instead, the measure must simply be "pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.38 Tw
(ductive of some revenue." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sonzinsky) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 300 U.S. at 514) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(upholding tax that raised $5,400 in revenue in 1934\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.66 Tw
(Second, to be constitutional, a tax must be imposed for the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(general welfare. Congress enjoys wide discretion regarding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(what is in the general welfare. "The discretion . . . is not con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(fided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(an exercise of judgment." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helvering) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301 U.S. at 640. There-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(fore, in determining whether a congressional enactment fur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.35 Tw
(thers the general welfare, "courts should defer substantially to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(the judgment of Congress." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(South Dakota v. Dole) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 483 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(203, 207 \(1987\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(Finally, even if an exaction is rationally related to raising) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(revenue and furthers the general welfare, to be constitutional,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.11 Tw
(it must not infringe upon another constitutional right. For) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(example, a tax may not infringe on an individual's right to be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(free from double jeopardy by further punishing criminal con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(duct. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Dep't of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 511) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(U.S. 767, 780-83 \(1994\) \(concluding that a drug tax was actu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(ally a criminal penalty based on its high rate, its deterrent pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.88 Tw
(pose, and a criminal prohibition on the taxed activity and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(holding that the tax consequently violated the Double Jeop-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment\).) Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26 Td
.36 Tw
(Turning now to the case at hand, the provisions at issue are) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(the exaction provisions in the individual and employer man-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(49) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
162 0 obj
3623
endobj
160 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 161 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 50 50
165 0 obj
<<
/Length 166 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.17 Tw
0 Tc
(dates. I would conclude, after examining their practical opera-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion, that these provisions impose taxes.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.28 Tw
(The individual mandate exaction in 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(5000A\(b\)) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.85 Tw
(amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide that a non-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.57 Tw
(exempted individual who fails to maintain a minimum level) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.21 Tw
(of insurance must pay a "penalty." Notably, while the individ-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.46 Tw
(ual mandate in some places uses the term "penalty," some) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.38 Tw
(form of the word "tax" appears in the statute over forty times.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.91 Tw
(26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.91 Tw
(5000A. For example, it references taxpayers and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.58 Tw
(their returns, includes amounts due under the provision in the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.8 Tw
(taxpayer's tax return liability, calculates the penalty by refer-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(ence to household income for tax purposes, and allows the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.37 Tw
(Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the provision like other) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
6 Tw
(taxes \(with several procedural exceptions\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Yet, as) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.3 Tw
(explained above, the label applied to an exaction is irrelevant;) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.57 Tw
(instead, in assessing an exaction's constitutionality, we look) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(to its practical operation. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
.32 Tw
(The practical operation of the individual mandate provision) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.25 Tw
(is as a tax. Individuals who are not required to file income tax) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(returns are not required to pay the penalty. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.55 Tw
(5000A\(e\)\(2\).) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(The amount of any penalty owed is generally calculated by) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.58 Tw
(reference to household income and reported on an individu-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.62 Tw
(al's federal income tax return. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.62 Tw
(5000A\(b\)-\(c\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Taxpayers) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
8.25 Tw
(filing jointly are jointly liable for the penalty. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.7 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The statute prescribes monthly penalties in an amount calculated by) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.76 Tw
(identifying a specified "percentage of the excess of the taxpayer's house-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.83 Tw
(hold income for the taxable year over the amount of gross income speci-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.2 Tw
(fied in section 6012\(a\)\(1\)" unless that calculation produces an amount that) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.03 Tw
(is less than certain statutorily defined thresholds. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(2\).) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.6 Tw
(Ultimately, the penalty owed by a taxpayer is equal to the lesser of either) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.79 Tw
(the sum of the monthly penalties owed by the taxpayer or the cost of the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.37 Tw
("national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
4.2 Tw
(level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.97 Tw
(involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
3.54 Tw
(the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(1\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -353.35 m 300 -353.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(50) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
166 0 obj
4275
endobj
164 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 165 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 51 51
168 0 obj
<<
/Length 169 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.91 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.91 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\). And the Secretary of the Treasury is) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.52 Tw
(empowered to enforce the provision like a tax, albeit with) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
(several procedural exceptions.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5000A\(g\). The individual) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.38 Tw
(mandate exaction, codified in the Internal Revenue Code,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(therefore functions as a tax.) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
3.91 Tw
(Looking next at the employer mandate exaction in 26) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
3.37 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.37 Tw
(4980H, it amends the Internal Revenue Code to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.86 Tw
(impose an "assessable payment" on large employers if a) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(health exchange notifies the employer that at least one full-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.75 Tw
(time employee obtains a premium tax credit or cost-sharing) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.85 Tw
(reduction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.85 Tw
(4980H\(a\)-\(b\). The amount of the assessable) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5.38 Tw
(payment is calculated differently based on whether the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.38 Tw
(employer offers adequate health insurance coverage to its) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.72 Tw
(employees. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.72 Tw
(4980H\(a\)-\(c\). And instead of the term "pen-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.48 Tw
(alty," the employer mandate uses the terms "assessable pay-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(ment" and "tax." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.57 Tw
(4980H\(b\). Like the individual mandate) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.43 Tw
(exaction, the practical operation of this provision is as a tax) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(that is assessed and collected in the same manner as other) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
6.42 Tw
(Internal Revenue Code penalties treated as taxes.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(4980H\(d\).) Tj
12 -26.3 Td
1.95 Tw
(Having concluded that the individual and employer man-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.88 Tw
(dates operate as taxes,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to determine whether they are consti-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.62 Tw
(tutional, I must consider whether they: 1\) are reasonably) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.11 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The fact that Congress considered it necessary to exempt the individual) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.5 Tw
(mandate exaction from some traditional tax collection procedures like) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.74 Tw
(criminal liability and liens evidences that the exaction is a tax. 26 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.75 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(5000A\(g\)\(2\). Otherwise, there would be no need to except the exaction) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.34 Tw
(from some of the standard tax collection procedures, which otherwise) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(apply. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.33 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(No exceptions to the standard collection procedures exist in the case) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(of the employer mandate. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(4980H\(d\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.44 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Since the Supreme Court long ago established that Congress did not) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.95 Tw
(have to invoke the word "tax" to act within its taxing power, Congress's) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.15 Tw
(use of other verbiage in portions of the individual and employer mandates,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.82 Tw
(and most notably in the "penalty" provision of the individual mandate,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(sheds little light on Congressional intent. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Nelson) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 U.S. at 363. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -337.75 m 300 -337.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(51) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
169 0 obj
4579
endobj
167 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 168 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 52 52
171 0 obj
<<
/Length 172 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.21 Tw
0 Tc
(related to raising revenue; 2\) serve the general welfare; and 3\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(do not infringe upon any other right. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.33 Tw
(The individual and employer exactions are surely related to) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.61 Tw
(raising revenue. The Congressional Budget Office estimated) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.32 Tw
(that the individual mandate exaction will generate approxi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(mately $4 billion annually, and the employer mandate exac-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(tion, $11 billion annually, by 2019. Letter from Douglas W.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(Elmendorf, Dir., Cong. Budget Office, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi,) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.71 Tw
(Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, tbl. 4 \(Mar. 20,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
11.53 Tw
(2010\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(available at) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Patient Protection) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, ) Tj
( ) Tj
(1563\(a\), 124) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(Stat. 119, 270 \(stating that the Affordable Care Act "will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(reduce the Federal deficit"\). Not only will the exactions raise) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(significant amounts of revenue, but the revenue raised can) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(cover the "[h]igher government costs attributable to the unin-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.79 Tw
(sured . . . implicitly paid for by the insured . . . through) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(increased taxes or reductions in other government services as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(money is spent on the uninsured." Brief Amici Curiae of Eco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(nomic Scholars in Support of Defendants-Appellees at 13,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(Liberty Univ. v. Geithner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, No. 10-2347. In other words, as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.35 Tw
(Judge Davis notes in his opinion, "[b]ecause the uninsured) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(effectively force the rest of the nation to insure them with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(respect to basic, stabilizing care, this penalty is something like) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(a premium paid into the federal government, which bears a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.02 Tw
(large share of the shifted costs as the largest insurer in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(nation." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Post ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(at 98. Clearly, then, the exactions bear "some) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(reasonable relation" to raising revenue. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Doremus) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 249 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(93. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See also ) Tj
(Sonzinsky) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 300 U.S. at 514 \(upholding tax that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(raised $5,400 in revenue\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.28 Tw
(Further, the individual and employer mandate exactions) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(serve the general welfare. The Affordable Care Act is aimed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(at, among other things, reducing the number of the uninsured) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(as well as the cost of those who remain uninsured imposed on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(those who are insured. Congress found that, nationwide, hos-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(pitals provided $43 billion in uncompensated care to the unin-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(52) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
172 0 obj
3851
endobj
170 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 171 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 53 53
174 0 obj
<<
/Length 175 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.4 Tw
0 Tc
(sured in 2009 and that these costs were shifted onto insured) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.8 Tw
(individuals, "increas[ing] family premiums by on average) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(over $1,000 a year." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.2 Tw
(18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). It also found) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(that "[b]y significantly reducing the number of the uninsured,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(the [individual mandate], together with the other provisions of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.6 Tw
(th[e] Act, will lower health insurance premiums." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( By) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.11 Tw
(encouraging individuals to purchase health insurance and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.45 Tw
(employers to provide it, the individual and employer man-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(dates alleviate the costs associated with providing uncompen-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5 Tw
(sated care to the uninsured and lower health insurance) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(premiums. Such cost reductions and expansions in access to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.71 Tw
(health insurance surely constitute contributions to the general) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(welfare.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.12 Tw
(Finally, neither the exaction in the individual mandate nor) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.85 Tw
(that in the employer mandate infringes on other rights. The) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(exactions do not, for example, operate to impose duplicative) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.91 Tw
(criminal penalties in violation of the prohibition against dou-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.71 Tw
(ble jeopardy. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Kurth Ranch) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 511 U.S. at 780-83 \("Taxes) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.11 Tw
(imposed upon illegal activities are fundamentally different) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.33 Tw
(from taxes with a pure revenue-raising purpose that are) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.47 Tw
(imposed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(despite) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( their adverse effect on the taxed activity."\).) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(The provisions lack the punitive character of other measures) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.39 Tw
(the Supreme Court has held to be penalties. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.48 Tw
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 36. And the provisions do not appear to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
-.53 Tw
(violate any other rights: No one has a right to be free from taxa-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.498 -26.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(C.) Tj
-132.498 -26.4 Td
.91 Tw
(It bears mention that the individual and employer mandate) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(exactions do not run afoul of the constitutional requirement) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.17 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Additionally, any contention that the individual mandate violates either) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.15 Tw
(the First, Fifth, or Tenth Amendment is, in my opinion, meritless. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(post) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.2 Td
1.09 Tw
(at 105-109; ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.87 Tw
(Servs.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178, at *113-17 \(11th Cir. Aug. 12,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(2011\) \(Marcus, J., dissenting\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(53) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
175 0 obj
4011
endobj
173 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 174 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 54 54
177 0 obj
<<
/Length 178 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.54 Tw
0 Tc
(that "[n]o Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless) Tj
0 -13 Td
3 Tw
(in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before) Tj
0 -13 Td
.48 Tw
(directed to be taken." U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
(9, cl. 4. This clause) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.84 Tw
(has its origins in the Constitutional Convention's slavery) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.36 Tw
(debates. The Northern states consented to count a slave as) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.08 Tw
(three-fifths of a person for allocating representatives in Con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(gress in exchange for a corresponding increase in the tax lia-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.95 Tw
(bility of Southern states. Brian Galle, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(The Taxing Power, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(Affordable Care Act, and the Limits of Constitutional Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.92 Tw
(promise) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 120 Yale L.J. Online 407, 414 \(Apr. 5, 2011\),) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.66 Tw
(http://yalelawjournal.org/2011/4/5/galle.html. Even at that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(time, the definition of "direct" tax was unclear. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Springer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.34 Tw
(v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 102 U.S. 586, 596 \(1880\) \("It does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(appear that an attempt was made by any one to define the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(exact meaning of the language employed."\). ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.75 Tw
(It is therefore understandable that the Supreme Court has) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(demonstrated reluctance to strike a tax based solely on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(direct/indirect distinction. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Knowlton v. Moore) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 178 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(41, 83 \(1900\) \("[I]t is no part of the duty of this court to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(lessen, impede, or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(upon the differing theories of political economists than upon) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(the practical nature of the tax itself." \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(quoting ) Tj
(Nicol v. Ames) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.78 Tw
(173 U.S. 509, 515 \(1899\)\). Indeed, the Supreme Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(restricted the meaning of "direct" taxes to capitation, or head) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(taxes, and taxes on the ownership of real property. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Springer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(102 U.S. at 602; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Veazie Bank v. Fenno) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 75 U.S. \(8 Wall.\) 533,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(544 \(1869\). Taxes on personal property have also been held) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(to be direct. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 158 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(601, 637 \(1895\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(superseded on other grounds by constitu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tional amendment) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, U.S. Const. amend. XVI, as recognized in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Brushaber) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 240 U.S. 1. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
.74 Tw
(The Supreme Court has never struck down a federal tax as) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(an unapportioned capitation tax. And the Supreme Court has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(repeatedly upheld a variety of federal taxes as indirect and) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(54) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
178 0 obj
4085
endobj
176 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 163 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 177 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 55 55
180 0 obj
<<
/Length 181 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.05 Tw
0 Tc
(therefore outside the apportionment requirement. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Knowl-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(ton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 178 U.S. at 83 \(upholding a federal estate tax\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bromley) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.74 Tw
(v. McCaughn) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 280 U.S. 124, 138 \(1929\) \(upholding a federal) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.16 Tw
(gift tax\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank of Detroit) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 363) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(U.S. 194, 199 \(1960\) \(upholding a federal estate tax collected) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(on an insurance policy\). As the Supreme Court has explained,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.61 Tw
("[a] tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.71 Tw
(from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax which Congress . . .) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.92 Tw
(undoubtedly may impose." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tyler v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 281 U.S.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(497, 502 \(1930\).) Tj
12 -24.6 Td
3 Tw
(The individual and employer mandate exactions are not) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.73 Tw
(capitation taxes; nor are they direct taxes that must be appor-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(tioned. Far from being imposed without regard to circum-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.22 Tw
(stance, they will be imposed only upon taxpayers who can) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(afford, but fail to maintain, health insurance, or upon employ-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.15 Tw
(ers who fail to provide adequate and affordable insurance. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
.45 Tw
(26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.45 Tw
(4980H, 5000A. As taxes "laid upon the happen-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(ing of an event," the individual and employer mandate exac-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.84 Tw
(tions are clearly indirect. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Tyler) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 281 U.S. at 502. Nor are) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(they property taxes, since they will not be assessed based on) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(the ownership of property.) Tj
12 -24.7 Td
.22 Tw
(Indeed, the Supreme Court has so limited the application of) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
.86 Tw
(the Direct Tax Clause that the Sixth Circuit concluded that it) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.08 Tw
("relates solely to taxation generally for the purpose of revenue) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.7 Tw
(only, and not impositions made incidentally under the com-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(merce clause exerted either directly or by delegation, as a) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(means of constraining and regulating what may be considered) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.34 Tw
(by the Congress as pernicious or harmful to commerce." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Rod-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.93 Tw
(gers v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 138 F.2d 992, 995 \(6th Cir. 1943\).) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.5 Tw
(Since the individual and employer mandate exactions are nei-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(ther capitation nor property taxes, the Direct Tax Clause is) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.24 Tw
(inapplicable, and the individual and employer mandate taxes) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(stand.) Tj
142.506 -24.7 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -24.7 Td
.7 Tw
(In sum, I concur in Judge Motz's fine opinion holding that) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.75 Tw
(the AIA applies here. Our distinguished colleague vigorously) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(55) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
181 0 obj
3826
endobj
179 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 180 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 56 56
184 0 obj
<<
/Length 185 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.25 Tw
0 Tc
(dissents from our holding and presents a credible basis for) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.9 Tw
(upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.07 Tw
(under the Commerce Clause. However, were I to rule on the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(merits, for the reasons given in this opinion, I would uphold) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.36 Tw
(the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on the basis) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.17 Tw
(that Congress had the authority to enact the individual and) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(employer mandates, which operate as taxes, under its taxing) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.81 Tw
(power. Accordingly, I must agree with Judge Motz that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(AIA bars this suit.) Tj
0 -26 Td
(DAVIS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:) Tj
12 -26 Td
.8 Tw
(Today we are asked to rule on the constitutionality of core) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(Appellants advance several arguments against the Act, chief) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(among them their claim that Congress exceeded its power) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(when it sought to require all individuals \(with narrow excep-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(tions\) to obtain a certain minimum of health insurance cover-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.87 Tw
(age starting in 2014. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.87 Tw
(5000A. In particular,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(appellants urge that the Commerce Clause, which authorizes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.15 Tw
(Congress "To regulate Commerce . . . among the several) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.49 Tw
(States," U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.49 Tw
(8, cl. 3, allows only regulation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(economic ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(activity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Thus, they contend, Congress cannot regu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(late appellants' "decision not to purchase health insurance and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(to otherwise privately manage [their] own healthcare," which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(they characterize as "inactivity in commerce," Appellants' Br.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(1. They also contend that upholding the Act under the Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.85 Tw
(merce Clause would "create an unconstitutional national) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(police power that would threaten all aspects of American) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.35 Tw
(life," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 11, suggesting in particular that "Congress could) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(vals" or that "everyone above a certain income threshold buy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(a General Motors automobile," Appellants' Reply Br. 9 \(quot-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.13 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Dep't of Health and Human) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, ___, 2011 WL 285683, at *24) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(\(N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.76 Tw
(nom. Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178 \(11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011\)\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(56) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
185 0 obj
3749
endobj
183 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 184 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 57 57
187 0 obj
<<
/Length 188 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.66 Tw
0 Tc
(Appellants bring a similar facial challenge to the Act's) Tj
0 -13 Td
.75 Tw
(employer mandate, and they also assert Free Exercise, Estab-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(lishment Clause, and Equal Protection claims against the Act.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.84 Tw
(My good colleagues in the majority hold that the Anti-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(Injunction Act strips us of jurisdiction in this case. For rea-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(sons I explain at length below, I disagree. As I reject the rea-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(soning and the result of the majority's jurisdictional analysis,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(I am entitled to reach the merits of appellants' claims. Reach-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(ing the merits, I would hold that the challenged provisions of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(the Act are a proper exercise of Congress's authority under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.16 Tw
(the Commerce Clause to regulate the interstate markets for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(health services and health insurance. I do not believe that con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(stitutional review of the Act requires courts to decide whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.11 Tw
(the Commerce Clause discriminates between activity and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(inactivity. But even if I were to assume appellants were "inac-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(tive," I could not accept appellants' contention that a distinc-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(tion between "activity" and "inactivity" is vital to Commerce) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(Clause analysis. I would therefore affirm the district court's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(dismissal of appellants' suit.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.95 Tw
(Appellants raise two major concerns about upholding the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.45 Tw
(Act: first, they believe that individual liberty is infringed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(when the federal government is permitted to regulate ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(involun-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(tary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( market participants; second, they fear that our liberty will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(be further eroded in the future, as a ruling sustaining the Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(would permit Congress to establish arbitrary purchase man-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(dates. Because I take these concerns very seriously, I explain) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(at some length why the Act is a far more limited exercise of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(federal power than appellants fear.) Tj
92.406 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Anti-Injunction Act) Tj
22.332 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(My View) Tj
-102.738 -26 Td
.81 Tw
(The majority concludes that the Anti-Injunction Act \(AIA\)) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(applies to the challenged provisions of the Affordable Care) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(Act, depriving us of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(57) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
188 0 obj
3326
endobj
186 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 187 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 58 58
190 0 obj
<<
/Length 191 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.05 Tw
0 Tc
(parties argue that we have jurisdiction, "federal courts have an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.4 Tw
(independent obligation to . . . raise and decide jurisdictional) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.01 Tw
(questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
.88 Tw
(Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ U.S. ___, ___,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(131 S. Ct. 1197, 1202 \(2011\).) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.67 Tw
(Before today, nine federal judges had expressly considered) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.63 Tw
(the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, and all nine held) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.55 Tw
(it inapplicable to the Affordable Care Act's mandates. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(Thomas More Law Center v. Obama) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.4 Tw
(WL 2556039, at *6-*8 \(6th Cir. June 29, 2011\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Goudy-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.44 Tw
(Bachman v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 695-97 \(M.D. Pa. 2011\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Liberty Univer-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.51 Tw
(sity, Inc. v. Geithner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611, 627-29 \(W.D. Va.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(2010\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States Citizens Ass'n v. Sebelius) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 754 F. Supp.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(2d 903, 909 \(N.D. Ohio 2010\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida ex rel. McCollum v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.83 Tw
(United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 716 F. Supp.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(2d 1120, 1130-44 \(N.D. Fla. 2010\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More Law Cen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(ter v. Obama) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882, 890-91 \(E.D. Mich.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(2010\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebellius) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 702 F. Supp. 2d) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(598, 603-605 \(E.D. Va. 2010\). Although the two circuit courts) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.22 Tw
(that have considered challenges to the mandates have split, all) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.55 Tw
(six members of those panels agreed that the courts should) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.13 Tw
(reach the merits; only the Sixth Circuit panel thought it neces-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.87 Tw
(sary to discuss the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health &) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.84 Tw
(Human Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178 \(11th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(Aug. 12, 2011\) \(reaching the merits without raising the appli-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(cability of the AIA\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More Law Center) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(___, 2011 WL at *6-*8 \(expressly holding the AIA does not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(apply\). For the following reasons, I agree with these judges) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(and would hold that the AIA does not strip us of jurisdiction) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(in this case.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.24 Tw
(The Anti-Injunction Act, originally enacted in 1867, directs) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.01 Tw
(person," certain enumerated exceptions aside. 26 U.S.C.) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(58) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
191 0 obj
3961
endobj
189 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 190 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 59 59
193 0 obj
<<
/Length 194 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.36 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.36 Tw
(7421\(a\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thus, we have jurisdiction only if the penalty pro-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.82 Tw
(visions attached to the challenged mandates do not constitute) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
("tax[es]" for purposes of the AIA.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
2.66 Tw
(The Sixth Circuit recently held that the individual man-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(date's penalty provision was not a "tax" within the meaning) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.39 Tw
(of the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More Law Center) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(WL at *6-*8. Its reasoning is straightforward: Congress spoke) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(only of "tax[es]" in the Anti-Injunction Act, while it deemed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(the amount owed by those in violation of the individual man-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(date a "penalty." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at *7; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(compare) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.09 Tw
(7421\(a\)) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(with ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5000A\(b\), \(c\), \(e\), \(g\). And Congress did not simply) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.15 Tw
(use the term "penalty" in passing: Congress refers to the exac-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(tion no fewer than seventeen times in the relevant provision,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(and each time Congress calls it a "penalty.") Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.37 Tw
(In fact, Congress considered earlier versions of the individ-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.87 Tw
(ual mandate that clearly characterized the exaction as a "tax") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(and referred to it as such more than a dozen times. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( H.R.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.38 Tw
(3962, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.38 Tw
(501, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \("impos[ing] a tax" in sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.67 Tw
(tion entitled "Tax on individuals without acceptable health) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(care coverage," and repeatedly referring to this exaction as a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.05 Tw
("tax"\); H.R. 3200, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.05 Tw
(401, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \(same\); S. 1796,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.72 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.72 Tw
(1301, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \("impos[ing] a tax" in section) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although appellants also requested declaratory relief, the Declaratory) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
2.04 Tw
(Judgment Act "enlarged the range of remedies available in the federal) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.15 Tw
(courts but did not extend their jurisdiction." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(Petroleum Co.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 339 U.S. 667, 671 \(1950\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.68 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 99 F.3d 573, 582 \(4th Cir. 1996\). In any case, the Declaratory Judg-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(ment Act expressly excludes claims "with respect to Federal taxes." 28) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(2201\(a\). The Supreme Court has held this exclusion to be "at) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.54 Tw
(least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(U.S. 725, 732 n.7 \(1974\). ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.18 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This question of statutory interpretation is wholly distinct from the) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -11.3 Td
2.34 Tw
(constitutional) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( question concerning Congress's power under the Taxing) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.08 Tw
(and Spending Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.08 Tw
(8, cl. 1, to enact these mandates.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.58 Tw
(Because I would hold the Act constitutional under the Commerce Clause,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(I need not and do not reach the latter issue. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -327.95 m 300 -327.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(59) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
194 0 obj
4714
endobj
192 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 193 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 60 60
196 0 obj
<<
/Length 197 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.67 Tw
0 Tc
(entitled "Excise tax on individuals without essential health) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(benefits coverage," and repeatedly referring to exaction as a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.4 Tw
("tax"\). Congress deliberately deleted all of these references to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.01 Tw
(a "tax" in the final version of the Act and instead designated) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(the exaction a "penalty." As the Supreme Court noted in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(INS) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.63 Tw
(v. Cardoza-Fonseca) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, "[f]ew principles of statutory construc-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.41 Tw
(tion are more compelling than the proposition that Congress) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.6 Tw
(does not intend ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(sub silentio) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to enact statutory language that it) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.27 Tw
(has earlier discarded in favor of other language." 480 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(421, 442-43 \(1987\). Thus, it seems odd for the majority to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.04 Tw
(ignore Congress's deliberate drafting decision to call the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(exaction a "penalty" rather than a "tax.") Tj
12 -26.6 Td
3.11 Tw
(When Congress has wished "penalties" to be treated as) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.09 Tw
("taxes," it has said so expressly. In Subchapter A of Chapter) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.56 Tw
(68 of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress directed that "any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(reference in this title [Title 26 of the United States Code \(the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(Internal Revenue Code\)] to `tax' imposed by this title shall be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.37 Tw
(deemed also to refer to the additions to the tax, additional) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
6.72 Tw
(amounts, and penalties provided by this chapter." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.5 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(1\). Likewise, in Subchapter B of that chapter, Con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.31 Tw
(gress instructed that "any reference in this title to `tax') Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the pen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
6.67 Tw
(alties and liabilities provided by this subchapter." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.46 Tw
(6671\(a\). Yet, Congress chose to place the individual man-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.68 Tw
(date and its "penalty" provisions not in Chapter 68 but in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.75 Tw
(Chapter 48, which contains no such instructions. Though) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.42 Tw
(Congress did provide that this penalty "be assessed and col-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.27 Tw
(lected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under sub-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(chapter B of chapter 68," and Chapter 68 "penalties" are) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(treated as "taxes," the term "assessment and collection like a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.42 Tw
(tax" does not imply that the penalty should be treated as a tax) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(for any and all other purposes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
( ) Tj
(5000A\(g\)\(1\). As the Sixth) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.26 Tw
(Circuit recently observed, "Congress said one thing in sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.53 Tw
(tions 665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), and something else in section) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(5000A, and we should respect the difference." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(2011 WL at *7. ) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(60) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
197 0 obj
3921
endobj
195 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 182 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 196 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 61 61
199 0 obj
<<
/Length 200 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.31 Tw
0 Tc
("Where, as here, resolution of federal law turns on a statute) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(and the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(language and then to the legislative history if the statutory) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.9 Tw
(language is unclear." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Blum v. Stenson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 886, 896) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.11 Tw
(\(1984\). Courts look to legislative history first to see whether) Tj
0 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(it indicates that Congress intended a particular result and then,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.66 Tw
(if not, to find evidence of the purposes of the statute. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.88 Tw
(Dolan v. United States Postal Service) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 U.S. 481, 486) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.13 Tw
(\(2006\) \("Interpretation of a word or phrase depends upon) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(context of the statute . . . ."\). Even if the statutory text were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(unclear here, legislative history indicates that the AIA should) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(not apply.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(Legislative history of the Affordable Care Act reveals that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
(Congress never considered application of the Anti-Injunction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(Act. Nowhere in the Act's voluminous legislative history can) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(I find a single reference to the AIA. And when members of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.71 Tw
(Congress discussed the inevitable judicial review of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.21 Tw
(Affordable Care Act, no one appears to have contemplated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.39 Tw
(that the AIA might bar such review for the five years, post-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(enactment, that would have to elapse before a tax refund suit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(could be brought.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.53 Tw
(Looking, then, to legislative purpose, it appears that imme-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(diate judicial review of the individual mandate would do little) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(to frustrate the aims of the AIA. The Anti-Injunction Act was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(intended to "protect[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.84 Tw
(] the expeditious collection of revenue.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(South Carolina v. Regan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 367, 376 \(1984\). Revenue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(from the individual mandate's penalty provision will not be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(assessed and collected until the year after the mandate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(becomes operative2015. Judicial review of the mandate in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(2011 most assuredly will not frustrate "the expeditious collec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(tion of revenue" four years later. I also note that Congress for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(bid the Internal Revenue Service from employing its primary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(enforcement mechanisms to collect this penalty: the IRS may) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(not seek the institution of criminal prosecutions by the Justice) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(Department or impose a lien or levy on an individual's prop-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(61) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
200 0 obj
3680
endobj
198 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 199 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 62 62
203 0 obj
<<
/Length 204 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.36 Tw
0 Tc
(erty for failure to pay the penalty. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.36 Tw
(5000A\(g\)\(2\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.47 Tw
(This indicates that Congress had scant concern for "the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(expeditious collection of revenue" from the penalty provision.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(A failure to provide immediate judicial review in reliance) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.7 Tw
(on a rather strained construction of the AIA, on the other) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.46 Tw
(hand, might undermine the core purpose of the Affordable) Tj
0 -13 Td
.79 Tw
(Care Act. In the absence of a conclusive ruling from the fed-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(eral courts, some individuals may well decide for themselves) Tj
0 -13 Td
.18 Tw
(that the Act is unconstitutional and thus can be ignored. In the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(case of an ordinary tax this would simply result in some lost) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(revenue and the costs of tax prosecutions; here, it would push) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(the nation farther from Congress's goal of attaining near-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(universal health insurance coverage. And, as leaving the con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(stitutionality of the Act unsettled would seem likely to create) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(uncertainty in the health insurance and health care industries,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(which might depress these major sectors of the economy, it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(seems that application of the AIA would be at cross-purposes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(with the Act's reforms. Thus, I believe that there is ample rea-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(son for me to conclude that Congress had no design that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(Anti-Injunction Act might apply to the individual mandate's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(penalty provisions.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1 Tw
(The question of our jurisdiction over appellants' challenge) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(to the analogous penalty attached to the employer mandate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.26 Tw
(presents a closer question. That exaction is termed "an assess-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(able payment" in the provision that imposes it, but it is then) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.65 Tw
(twice referred to as a "tax" in later, qualifying provisions.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(Compare ) Tj
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.97 Tw
(4980H\(a\) ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(with ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.97 Tw
(4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\). "The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(. . . ambiguity of statutory language is determined by refer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(ence to the language itself, the specific context in which that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.39 Tw
(language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(whole." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 519 U.S. 337, 341 \(1997\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(Given these mixed references, and mindful of the Supreme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.44 Tw
(Court's warning in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 310) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(U.S. 534, 542 \(1940\), that "[t]o take a few words from their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(context and with them thus isolated to attempt to determine) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(their meaning, certainly would not contribute greatly to the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(62) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
204 0 obj
3874
endobj
202 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 203 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 63 63
206 0 obj
<<
/Length 207 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.64 Tw
0 Tc
(discovery of the purpose of the draftsmen of a statute," I find) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(the text of the employer mandate provision ambiguous on the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(application of the Anti-Injunction Act.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.14 Tw
(Thus, I would again look to legislative history and Con-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.37 Tw
(gressional purpose. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.14 Tw
(320 U.S. 344, 350-51 \(1943\) \(Jackson, J.\) \(explaining that our) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(canons of statutory construction "long have been subordinated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy"\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(For the reasons stated above, I would hold that Congress did) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(not intend the Anti-Injunction Act to block timely judicial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(review of the employer mandate provisions. Accordingly, I) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(would hold that we have jurisdiction to consider all of appel-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lants' claims.) Tj
95.97 -26 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
( Majority's View) Tj
-83.97 -26 Td
3.67 Tw
(The majority's contrary conclusion relies on two argu-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.95 Tw
(ments, neither of which I find convincing. First, the majority) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(contends that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(that congressional labels have little bearing on whether an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(exaction qualified as a `tax' for statutory purposes" and that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
("the Court has specifically found an exaction's label immate-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(rial to the applicability of the AIA," displacing the ordinary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(methods of statutory interpretation with a functional analysis) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.22 Tw
(of the challenged exactions. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( pp. 25-26. Thus, in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(majority's view, "it is simply irrelevant what the 2010 Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(gress would have thought about the AIA; all that matters is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(whether the 2010 Congress imposed a tax." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 36. Sec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.31 Tw
(ond, the majority asserts that "[t]he Supreme Court has con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(cluded that the AIA uses the term `tax' in its broadest possible) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.3 Tw
(sense" and thus that this functional analysis sweeps quite) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.82 Tw
(broadly: the majority holds that "the AIA prohibits a pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(enforcement challenge to any exaction that is made under) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(63) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
207 0 obj
3606
endobj
205 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 206 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 64 64
209 0 obj
<<
/Length 210 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.55 Tw
0 Tc
(color of their offices by revenue officers charged with the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.64 Tw
(general authority to assess and collect the revenue." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(22 \(internal quotation marks and braces omitted\).) Tj
145.5 -26.7 Td
(1.) Tj
-133.5 -26.7 Td
.24 Tw
(The majority's functional approach hinges on its interpreta-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
4.58 Tw
(tion of two Supreme Court cases from 1922: ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. 16 \(1922\), and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke v. Lederer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.84 Tw
(557 \(1922\). I read these cases differently from the manner in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.46 Tw
(which the majority reads them. Because the majority's view) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( brings these cases into conflict, I believe) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(my approach, which harmonizes them, is preferable.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(The majority asserts that in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( "the Court . . . specifi-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(cally found an exaction's label immaterial to the applicability) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(of the AIA." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 26. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court held that "[t]he mere) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(use of the word `tax' in an act primarily designed to define) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.5 Tw
(and suppress crime is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not enough) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to show that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(within the true) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.37 Tw
(intendment of the term) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( a tax was laid." 259 U.S. at 561) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.62 Tw
(\(emphases added\). That is, "[t]he mere use of the word `tax'") Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(in a criminal statuteparticularly where, as in the statute at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(issue in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the word "tax" is immediately followed by the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
6.31 Tw
(word "penalty"is not dispositive of Congress's "true) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.44 Tw
(inten[t]" regarding application of the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( This is an ordi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.04 Tw
(nary exercise in statutory interpretation, not an instruction) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(from the Court to disregard Congressional designations as) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
("immaterial to the applicability of the AIA." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 26.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.3 Tw
(The Court did go on to examine the function of the exac-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.21 Tw
(tion, noting that "[w]hen by its very nature the imposition is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(a penalty, it must be so regarded," but it did ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( do so in the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(course of an ordinary application of the AIA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.11 Tw
(at 561. Rather, it is clear that the Court considered the func-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.93 Tw
(tion of the exaction because that function \(as a criminal pen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.57 Tw
(alty\) was relevant to the Court's due process concerns. It was) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(to resolve this constitutional problem, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( simply to construe) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(64) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
210 0 obj
4086
endobj
208 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 209 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 65 65
212 0 obj
<<
/Length 213 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.56 Tw
0 Tc
(the word "taxes" in the AIA, that the Court looked to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(exaction's function.) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Thus, the Court reasoned,) Tj
10 -26 Td
.9 Tw
(Before collection of taxes levied by statutes enacted) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.66 Tw
(in plain pursuance of the taxing power can be) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(enforced, the taxpayer must be given fair opportunity) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.77 Tw
(for hearing; this is essential to due process of law.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.62 Tw
(And certainly we cannot conclude, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in the absence of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.26 Tw
(language admitting of no other construction) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(Congress intended that penalties for crime should be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(enforced through the secret findings and summary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(action of executive officers. The guaranties of due) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(process of law and trial by jury are not to be forgot-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ten or disregarded.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
1.41 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 562 \(emphasis added\). This passage strongly indicates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(that the Court was applying the canon of constitutional avoid-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(ance, construing the exaction at issue together with the AIA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(so as not to run afoul of due process. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(South Carolina v.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(Regan) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 367, 398-400 \(1984\) \(O'Connor, J., concur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(ring in the judgment\) \(relying on doctrine of constitutional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(avoidance to interpret the AIA not to apply to original juris-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(diction of the Supreme Court\). The functional analysis was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(required by the Court's constitutional concerns, as due pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(cess is triggered when the penalty is criminal, whatever its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(designation by Congress. As the AIA was simply being inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(preted to accord with the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(constitutional) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( mandate of due pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(cesswhich binds Congress and thus of course requires that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(we look beyond Congressional labels to the nature and func-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tion of the exaction) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not establish a new methodol-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.02 Tw
(ogy for construing "taxes" under the AIA. Instead, it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.72 Tw
(recognized that the term "taxes" in the AIA is flexible, like) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(nearly all statutory language, and may admit to alternative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(constructions. And it affirmed that a court's goal when apply-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(ing the AIA, like any other statute, is to do so in accord with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the "true intendment" of Congress. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 561.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(65) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
213 0 obj
3584
endobj
211 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 212 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 66 66
215 0 obj
<<
/Length 216 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.25 Tw
0 Tc
(This reading of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( harmonizes it with the two ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13 Td
2 Tw
(cases. As the majority explains, the Supreme Court consid-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.42 Tw
(ered a tax refund suit in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(held the Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as a "penalty") Tj
0 -13 Td
.4 Tw
(rather than a "tax." 259 U.S. 20, 38-39 \(1922\). The same day,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court dismissed, pursuant to the AIA) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(\() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.53 Tw
(3224, precursor to the modern AIA\), a pre-collection suit) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(alleging the Child Labor Tax Law was unconstitutional. 259) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(U.S. 16 \(1922\). The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court's reasoning is extremely) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(brief \(in a one-page opinion\): "The averment that a taxing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(statute is unconstitutional does not take this case out of [the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(AIA]." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 20. The question, of course, is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(why) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the statute,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(though an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power per) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(Drexel Furniture) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, is still "a taxing statute" for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(AIA.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.66 Tw
(My answer is the more straightforward one: it constitutes) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(a "taxing statute" for purposes of the AIA because it ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.94 Tw
(ported) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to be a taxing statute and appeared to be one on its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(facethat is, because it was designated as a taxing statute by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(Congress. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Drexel Furniture) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 34 \(noting exac-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(tion was called "Tax on Employment of Child Labor," part of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
("An act to provide revenue . . ."\). Thus, the Court provided) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(no explanation because it relied on the most obvious reason) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.59 Tw
(for deeming the statute at issue a "taxing statute." The major-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(ity disagrees, arguing that "the Court ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(never ) Tj
(mentioned) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.49 Tw
(statutory label" in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and that "it [does not] seem plausi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(ble that the Court implicitly relied on that label, given that it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(had never before and has never since found an exaction's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(label controlling for statutory purposes." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 27.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.52 Tw
(Under the majority's approach, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court must) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.58 Tw
(have conducted a functional analysis of the exaction and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(determined that it qualified as a tax. Yet this supposed func-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(tional analysis appears nowhere in the opinion. It is difficult) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.86 Tw
(to believe that the Court would not bother to specify any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(criteria for determining when an exaction is functionally a tax,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(given that the Court had just held the statute ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to qualify as) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(66) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
216 0 obj
4325
endobj
214 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 201 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 215 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 67 67
218 0 obj
<<
/Length 219 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.85 Tw
0 Tc
(a tax for constitutional purposes in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Drexel Furniture) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. If the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.8 Td
.07 Tw
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court were relying on anything beyond the face of the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.03 Tw
(statute, surely the Court would have provided some explana-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.6 Tw
(tion of why the enactment qualified as a tax under the AIA) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(but not under the Taxing and Spending Clause.) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
4.28 Tw
(More troubling still, the majority's reading of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -12.8 Td
4.87 Tw
(brings it into conflict with ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Under the majority's) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.28 Tw
(approach, the Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( must have simply recognized) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.23 Tw
(that "the AIA . . . [reaches] any exaction that is made under) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(color of their offices by revenue officers charged with the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.31 Tw
(general authority to assess and collect the revenue." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 22) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.28 Tw
(\(internal quotation marks and braces omitted\). But these) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.57 Tw
(criteria fail to distinguish the "penalty" in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which was) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.35 Tw
(held to be ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(outside) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the AIA. The "penalty" in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( also met) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.51 Tw
(the majority's criteria: the National Prohibition Act simply) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.58 Tw
(doubled taxes already assessed and collected by the Commis-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.73 Tw
(sioner, 41 Stat. 305, 317-18 \(1919\), which were laid down in) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.65 Tw
(the Revenue Act of 1918 "on all distilled spirits," and were) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.14 Tw
("to be paid by the distiller or importer when withdrawn, and) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.41 Tw
(collected under the provisions of existing law," 40 Stat. 1057,) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.47 Tw
(1105, Title VI Tax on Beverages, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.47 Tw
(600\(a\). That the Court) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.92 Tw
(found the exaction tantamount to a criminal penalty does not) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.82 Tw
(change this.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Thus, by the majority's understanding of the) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.86 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority attempts to sidestep this conflict, nicely arguing that the) Tj
-10 -10.9 Td
.49 Tw
(Act "did not authorize the collector to make an assessment under his gen-) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.97 Tw
(eral revenue authority" because "it converted him into a federal prosecu-) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
1.95 Tw
(tor." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 28-29. But the constitutional failings of the Act does not) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.44 Tw
(change the fact that the Commissioner would be collecting the challenged) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
1.58 Tw
(tax "under his general revenue authority." The Act did not provide any) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.65 Tw
(separate mechanism for the assessment and collection of this tax, or even) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.35 Tw
(expressly assign those duties to the Commissioner; it simply stated that "a) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.37 Tw
(tax shall be assessed . . . and collected . . . in double the amount now pro-) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.31 Tw
(vided by law" from those illegally manufacturing or selling alcohol. Thus,) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
1.6 Tw
(the Commissioner could only perform such assessments and collections) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
2.08 Tw
(under the "general revenue authority" granted by the Internal Revenue) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.06 Tw
(Code. 41 Stat. at 318. That such assessments violated due process does not) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
1.23 Tw
(change the fact that the revenue officers doing the assessment would be) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
.74 Tw
(acting "under color of their offices." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 22 \(internal quotation marks) Tj
0 -10.9 Td
1 Tw
(omitted\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -314.55 m 300 -314.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(67) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
219 0 obj
4794
endobj
217 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 218 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 68 68
222 0 obj
<<
/Length 223 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
0 Tw
0 Tc
(AIA, there should have been ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(no room) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for constitutional avoid-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(ance, and the Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( should have held the AIA appli-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cable and refused jurisdiction.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(The majority seems to recognize that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( may appear) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(problematic, but it contends that it is not. It argues that ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(held only that when Congress converts the tax assessment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(process into a vehicle for ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(criminal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( prosecution, the Due Pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(cess Clause prohibits courts from applying the AIA." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(29. That was the core holding of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, yes, but the question) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(is whether the Court's construction of the AIA ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in reaching) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(that holding) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( accords with the majority's rigid interpretative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(regime constructed ninety years later.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Under the majority's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(proposed construction, the term "tax" in the AIA reaches ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(exactions which the Commissioner is empowered to collect.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( pp. 22-23. Yet, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court held that the AIA did ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(reach such an exaction. Though the majority would prefer that) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( "create[d] only a narrow constitutional limitation" to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(AIA, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 29, the Court's holding is simply ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( framed as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(creating an exception to the AIA. Rather, the Court explained) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.43 Tw
(that it "constru[ed]" the term "tax" in the AIA \(in accord with) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.39 Tw
("Congress[`s] inten[t]"\) and held that it was not so broad. 229) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.2 Tw
(U.S. at 561-62.) Tj
( The majority's view of the AIA, and its corre-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.95 Tw
(sponding interpretation of these cases, inescapably places) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( in conflict.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(My reading of these cases, which is fully consistent with) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.58 Tw
(my approach to the AIA, harmonizes them. Under my view) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.85 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This was the view of the dissenting opinion in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, which relied on) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -11.2 Td
.73 Tw
(George) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U.S. at 563 \(Brandeis, J., dissenting\) \("The relief) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.48 Tw
(should therefore be denied, whatever the construction of section 35, tit. 2,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.88 Tw
(of the Volstead Act, and even if it be deemed unconstitutional. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Compare) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.92 Tw
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 259 U. S. 16, 42 Sup. Ct. 419, 66 L. Ed. 816, decided) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(May 15, 1922."\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.36 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Indeed, the rigidity of the majority's approach prompts a reminder that) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.5 Tw
(we confront here the court's statutory jurisdiction, not its Article III juris-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(diction. Congress grants, and Congress restricts, as it chooses, the statu-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(tory jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -374.15 m 300 -374.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(68) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
223 0 obj
4966
endobj
221 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 222 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 69 69
225 0 obj
<<
/Length 226 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.17 Tw
0 Tc
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the AIA's "taxes" is recognized to be, like any statu-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.25 Tw
(tory language, a flexible term that must be interpreted in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.66 Tw
(accord with Congressional intent and, when applicable,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.76 Tw
(bounding constitutional mandates. In many cases, Congress's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.18 Tw
(decision to designate something a "tax" will prove disposi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.45 Tw
(tiveindeed, the designation did so in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey v. George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( simply reflects the recognition that Congress's use of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.02 Tw
(the word "tax" in an otherwise non-tax provision \(followed) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.77 Tw
(closely by the word "penalty"\) does not invariably ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(mandate) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
.24 Tw
(that the AIA be appliedconstitutional concerns can override) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.12 Tw
(congressional designations. This is fully in accord with my) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(view of the AIA and its relation to subsequent enactments,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.14 Tw
(particularly an expansive programmatic enactment such as the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(ACA that would alter the fabric of many layers of American) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(life.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.91 Tw
(The majority cites several other cases for the proposition) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(that we are to ignore Congressional designations when apply-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(ing the AIA, instead asking only whether an exaction is intrin-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.56 Tw
(sically a tax according to its "nature and character." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.84 Tw
(25 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 188 U.S. 605, 613) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1903\)\). I will briefly discuss two of them.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1.28 Tw
(Helwig v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, for instance, concerned the inter-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(action of a statute that imposed "a further sum" when import-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.15 Tw
(ers declared a value more than 10% lower than customs') Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.25 Tw
(subsequent appraisal and a statute that gave federal district) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.33 Tw
(courts exclusive jurisdiction over "penalties" and "forfei-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.92 Tw
(tures." The passage the majority excerpted from is quite) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(instructive:) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.92 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In this regard, Justice O'Connor nicely captured the essential purpose) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.26 Tw
(of the AIA when she declared: "The AIA `depriv[es] courts of jurisdiction) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.6 Tw
(to resolve abstract tax controversies . . . .'" ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(South Carolina v. Regan) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.48 Tw
(U.S. 367, 386 \(1984\) \(O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(and see) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.99 Tw
(id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 392 \("the Act generally precludes judicial resolution of all abstract) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.93 Tw
(tax controversies . . ."\). The essential issues presented in this case are) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(about as far from "abstract tax controversies" as one can get. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -409.75 m 300 -409.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(69) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
226 0 obj
4158
endobj
224 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 225 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 70 70
228 0 obj
<<
/Length 229 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
.58 Tw
0 Tc
(Although the statute . . . terms the money demanded) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.38 Tw
(as "a further sum," and does not describe it as a pen-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.56 Tw
(alty, still the use of those words does not change the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.2 Tw
(nature and character of the enactment. Congress may) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.18 Tw
(enact that such a provision shall not be considered as) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(a penalty or in the nature of one, with reference to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.12 Tw
(the further action of the officers of the government,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(or with reference to the distribution of the moneys) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.52 Tw
(thus paid, or with reference to its effect upon the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.09 Tw
(individual, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and it is the duty of the court to be gov-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.28 Tw
(erned by such statutory direction) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, but the intrinsic) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(nature of the provision remains, and, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in the absence) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.42 Tw
(of any declaration by Congress affecting the manner) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(in which the provision shall be treated) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, courts must) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
(decide the matter in accordance with their views of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(the nature of the act.) Tj
-22 -26.9 Td
3.28 Tw
(188 U.S. 605, 612-13 \(emphases added\). Thus, the Court) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.11 Tw
(emphasized that it looked to "the nature and character of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.62 Tw
(enactment" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( "in the absence of any declaration by Con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.45 Tw
(gress" giving direction to the court. Far from supporting the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.05 Tw
(majority's claim that "[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.85 Tw
(instructed that congressional labels have little bearing on) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(whether an exaction qualifies as a `tax' for statutory pur-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.91 Tw
(poses," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( indicates that Congressional labels that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(direct) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.25 Tw
(the court) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( may of course be dispositive. Terming an exaction) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
("a further sum" did not help the Court determine whether or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.32 Tw
(not that sum was a "penalty"; but Congress's expressly con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.42 Tw
(sidering calling an exaction a "tax" and then deleting the doz-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.69 Tw
(ens of references to a "tax" and instead designating it a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.49 Tw
("penalty" \(as Congress did in the course of its enactment of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.52 Tw
(the ACA\) ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(does) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( help courts determine whether Congress) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.85 Tw
(wished us to view the exaction as a "tax" for purposes of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.21 Tw
(AIA.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Though Congress did not expressly reference the AIA) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.5 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.01 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority focuses on ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s use of the phrase "with reference to,") Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
1.73 Tw
(suggesting that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( would have us consider Congressional direction) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(70) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
229 0 obj
4013
endobj
227 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 228 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 71 71
231 0 obj
<<
/Length 232 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.75 Tw
0 Tc
(hereand, judging from the legislative history, may well not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.24 Tw
(have considered application of the AIA specificallyit did) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.31 Tw
(consider whether to attach all the trappings of a "tax" to the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.18 Tw
(exaction \(including, among many others provisions, the AIA\),) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.48 Tw
(and decided instead to specify the ones it wanted. The AIA is) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(not among them.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.04 Tw
(The majority's second citation for that proposition, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.06 Tw
(States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 518) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.43 Tw
(U.S. 213, \(1996\), is much like ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. There the Court deter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(mined whether a "tax" imposed on certain funding deficien-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.68 Tw
(cies constituted an "excise tax" for Chapter 11 purposes \(as) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.52 Tw
("an excise tax" was accorded higher priority than ordinary) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(claims\). It prefaced its discussion by recognizing that "Con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
(gress could have included a provision in the Bankruptcy Code) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(calling [the relevant] exaction an excise tax . . . ; the only) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(question is whether the exaction ought to be treated as a tax) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.03 Tw
(\(and, if so, an excise\) without some such dispositive direc-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.26 Tw
(tion." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 219. Its ultimate conclusion considered legislative) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.24 Tw
(history of the exaction at issue and "conclude[d] that the 1978) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(Act reveals no congressional intent to reject generally the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.9 Tw
(interpretive principle that characterizations in the Internal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(Revenue Code are not dispositive in the bankruptcy context) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(. . . ." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 224. Here, where Congress provided one of the) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.3 Td
.67 Tw
(here only if it is expressly labeled as being made "`with reference to" the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.92 Tw
(AIA." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 25 n.5. But that very sentence in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( goes on to describe) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.7 Tw
(such direction as "any declaration by Congress ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(affecting the manner in) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.86 Tw
(which the provision shall be treated) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(." 188 U.S. at 613 \(emphasis added\).) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.74 Tw
(The following citations to "statute after statute" which the majority refer-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.96 Tw
(ences are part of the Court's analysis, the Court tells us, because it must) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(determine whether the "words [employed by Congress] are not regarded) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.61 Tw
(by Congress as imposing a penalty and [thus] should not be so treated by) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.49 Tw
(the court," for "[i]f it clearly appear that it is the will of Congress that the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.05 Tw
(provision shall not be regarded as in the nature of a penalty, the court must) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.1 Tw
(be governed by that will." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( I do not mean to suggest that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( teaches) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.7 Tw
(that "an exaction's label controls," ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 25 n.5, only that any Congres-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.54 Tw
(sional direction that indicates "the will of Congress" on the application of) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(the AIA should be considered. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -329.35 m 300 -329.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(71) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
232 0 obj
4435
endobj
230 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 231 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 72 72
234 0 obj
<<
/Length 235 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.28 Tw
0 Tc
(most direct signals it can of its intentionsit expressly con-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.21 Tw
(sidered calling the exaction a "tax" and ultimately decided not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.39 Tw
(to do so) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Helwig) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reorganized CF & I) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( would direct us to) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(follow Congress's direction) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and treat an exaction denomi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.46 Tw
(nated a "penalty" as a penalty and not as a tax for purposes) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the AIA.) Tj
145.5 -26.7 Td
(2.) Tj
-133.5 -26.7 Td
2.38 Tw
(Second, the majority's approach relies upon its assertion) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.93 Tw
(that "[t]he Supreme Court has concluded that the AIA uses) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.1 Tw
(the term `tax' in its broadest possible sense" and thus that "the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.42 Tw
(AIA prohibits a pre-enforcement challenge to any exaction) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(that is made under color of their offices by revenue officers) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(charged with the general authority to assess and collect the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.97 Tw
(revenue." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 22 \(internal quotation marks and braces) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(omitted\).) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.87 Tw
(This definition is far from self-evident. As the majority) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.53 Tw
(concedes, taxes and penalties are distinguished in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(some) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( fed-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(eral statutory "contexts." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 24 n.4. In the very case dis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(cussed above, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reorganized CF & I Fabricators) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which dates) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.23 Tw
(from 1996, the Court adopted these definitions for its "func-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.83 Tw
(tional" inquiry of the exaction at issue: "A tax is an enforced) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.7 Tw
(contribution to provide for the support of government; a pen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(alty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(an unlawful act." 518 U.S. at 224. The majority reasons that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.37 Tw
("[n]either the Secretary nor the Sixth Circuit cites a single) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(case suggesting that [this distinction applies to the AIA].") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 24 n.4. Of course, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, on which the majority relies,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(is one major AIA case that distinguishes between taxes and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.73 Tw
(penalties. And, as the Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reorganized CF & I Fabrica-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.23 Tw
(tors) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( borrowed its definitions of "tax" and "penalty" from a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
("somewhat different context," it appears that these definitions) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(are not particularly context-specific. 518 U.S. at 224. Thus, if) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.59 Tw
(a court is to perform a "functional examination" of its own,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.12 Tw
(why would it not use these well-settled definitions, under) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(72) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
235 0 obj
3781
endobj
233 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 220 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 234 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 73 73
237 0 obj
<<
/Length 238 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
(which the Affordable Care Act's exaction would clearly be a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(penalty \(for noncompliance with the individual mandate\)?) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.78 Tw
(By my count, the majority puts forward three affirmative) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.21 Tw
(arguments favoring the "broadest possible" definition for the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(word "taxes" in the AIA: \(1\) ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder v. Marks) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 109 U.S. 189) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.46 Tw
(\(1883\), established a broad definition of "tax" under the AIA;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(\(2\) the twin ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases show that the AIA is "broader" than) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.44 Tw
(the taxing clause; and \(3\) the fact that the IRS grants the Sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(retary the authority to make "assessments of all taxes \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(includ-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.45 Tw
(ing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(assessable penalties\) imposed by this title" implies that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.1 Tw
(AIA, which generally protects the Government's interest in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.46 Tw
(effecting unfettered tax assessments, must apply to all exac-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(tions. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.33 Tw
(6201\(a\) \(emphasis added\). I find these) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(arguments unpersuasive. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.87 Tw
(First, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( does not establish the broad definition the) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(majority cites it for. The Court explains that "tax" "meant that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.91 Tw
(which is in condition to be collected as a tax, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and is claimed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(by the proper public officers to be a tax) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." 109 U.S. at 192) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.52 Tw
(\(emphasis added\). Thus, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( clearly makes relevant the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.28 Tw
(Commissioner's designation of an exaction and, reasonably) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.07 Tw
(viewed, requires that the Commissioner "claim[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(]" an exaction) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
("to be a tax." Here, of course, the Secretary of the Treasury) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.88 Tw
(is a party before us and supports Congress's designation of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(the mandate as a "penalty" rather than a "tax.") Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
2 Tw
(Second, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bailey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cases have already been dealt with at) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.26 Tw
(length above. I agree that they show that the AIA is "broader") Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.6 Tw
(than the taxing clause when applied to exactions that are ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(des-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.62 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority believes the "fundamental problem with this argument is) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.48 Tw
(that the Secretary still does `claim' that the challenged exaction is a `tax,') Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.15 Tw
(albeit one authorized by the Constitution's Taxing Clause." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 28 n.7.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.92 Tw
(As ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( is discussing the use of the word "tax" in the precursor to the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.75 Tw
(modern AIA, I read ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Snyder) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( to refer to the Commissioner's designation) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(with respect to the statute. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(73) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
238 0 obj
4250
endobj
236 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 237 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 74 74
241 0 obj
<<
/Length 242 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.02 Tw
0 Tc
(ignated by Congress as "taxes") Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in the limited sense that they) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.27 Tw
(include some exactions that purport to be taxes yet are uncon-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(stitutionalbut they do no more than that.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(As for the majority's final argument, it seems to require a) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
2.15 Tw
(logical leap. I reproduce the relevant paragraph for ease of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(reference:) Tj
22 -25.3 Td
.33 Tw
() Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
.33 Tw
(The Court's broad interpretation of the AIA to bar) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.88 Tw
(interference with the assessment of any exaction) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.9 Tw
(imposed by the Code entirely accords with, and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.46 Tw
(indeed seems to be mandated by, other provisions of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.03 Tw
(the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA does not use) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.43 Tw
(the term "tax" in a vacuum; rather, it protects from) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.43 Tw
(judicial interference the ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(assessment) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( . . . of any tax.") Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.74 Tw
(I.R.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.74 Tw
(7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). The Secretary's) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.94 Tw
(authority to make such an "assessment . . . of any) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.2 Tw
(tax" derives directly from another provision in the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.62 Tw
(Code, which charges the Secretary with making "as-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.26 Tw
(sessments of all taxes \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(including) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( interest, additional) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.18 Tw
(amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(penal-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.95 Tw
(ties) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\) imposed by this title." ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.95 Tw
(6201\(a\) \(emphases) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.62 Tw
(added\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.62 Tw
(6202 \("assessment of any internal) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.12 Tw
(revenue tax" includes assessment of "penalties"\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.8 Td
1.32 Tw
(Thus, for purposes of the very assessment authority) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.8 Tw
(that the AIA protects, Congress made clear that) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.36 Tw
("penalties" \(as well as "interest, additional amounts,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.65 Tw
([and] additions to the tax"\) count as "taxes." Con-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.43 Tw
(gress must have intended the term "tax" in the AIA) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.55 Tw
(to refer to this same broad range of exactions. ) Tj
(See) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.9 Tw
(Erlenbaugh v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 409 U.S. 239, 243) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.3 Tw
(\(1972\) \("[A] legislative body generally uses a partic-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.77 Tw
(ular word with a consistent meaning in a given con-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(text."\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -25.3 Td
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 22-23 \(large emphasis mine\).) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
1.94 Tw
(I agree, of course, that "for purposes of the [Secretary's]) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.97 Tw
(assessment authority," Congress made clear that the `penal-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(74) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
242 0 obj
3602
endobj
240 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 241 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 75 75
244 0 obj
<<
/Length 245 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.04 Tw
0 Tc
(ties' . . . count as `taxes.'" Indeed, where Congress has wished) Tj
0 -13 Td
.93 Tw
("penalty" to be treated as a "tax," it has said so. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 26) Tj
0 -13 Td
7.08 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
7.08 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\), 6671\(a\) \(directing that "tax" be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.34 Tw
("deemed also to refer to . . . penalties" in Chapter 68 of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.7 Tw
(Internal Revenue Code\). It is not at all surprising that Con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(gress has employed this shorthand when defining the Secre-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(tary's authorities.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.92 Tw
(The problematic leap is this: simply because the AIA gen-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(erally protects the Secretary's assessment authority does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.43 Tw
(mean that the AIA must apply to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exactions. The many) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(exemptions included in the AIA as currently codified show) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(that Congress has often wished to exempt certain exactions) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(from the AIA. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it seems) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(improper for a court to insist that "taxes" means ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(any) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exaction) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(\(despite the fact that Congress does not say so\) and thereby) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(to undercut Congress's deliberate decision to reject designat-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(ing an exaction as a "tax" and instead to call it a "penalty.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(Given that we have been cited no cases that would require) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(such a large redrafting of the AIAother "penalties" to which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(the AIA have been applied were placed in Chapter 68, which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(expressly directs that all references to "tax" in the IRC are to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.11 Tw
(refer also to the Chapter's "penalties"I believe that this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
("broadest possible" interpretation of the AIA is unwarranted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(and unwise.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.96 Tw
(The majority appears to reject the legal force of sections) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.92 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), arguing that section 7806\(b\) "for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(bid[s] courts from deriving any `inference' or `implication') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(from the `location or grouping of any particular section or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(provision or portion of this title.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 31. This puzzles) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(me, as it is absolutely clear that sections 6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(have the force of law. Section 6665\(a\)\(2\) directs that "any ref-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.23 Tw
(erence in this title to `tax' imposed by this title shall be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(deemed also to refer to . . . penalties provided by this chap-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(ter." This instructs courts that Congress wished to make the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(word "penalty" inclusive of the word "tax" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in this particular) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(chapter) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(Chapter 68\). Congress remains free to do otherwise) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(75) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
245 0 obj
3817
endobj
243 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 244 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 76 76
247 0 obj
<<
/Length 248 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.66 Tw
0 Tc
(in other chapters; indeed, it chose not to do so in Chapter 48,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(in which the individual mandate is found. Giving force to sec-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.5 Tw
(tion 6665\(a\)\(2\) in no way contradicts section 7806\(b\) by) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(drawing a prohibited implication from the "location or group-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.87 Tw
(ing" of Internal Revenue Code \(IRC\) provisions. Section) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(7806\(b\) prohibits inferences drawn ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(from the location or group) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(itself; instructions can still flow from section 6665\(a\)\(2\) that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.97 Tw
(are to apply only to a specified chapter. This seems to me to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.08 Tw
(be beyond serious doubt. Likewise, section 7806\(b\) does not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.75 Tw
(prohibit courts interpreting one provision of the IRC from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(looking to other provisions of the IRC and noting that, where) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(Congress has desired a particular result, it has stated so. To) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.11 Tw
(suggest that a court cannot draw the traditional inference from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(Congress's decision to define "penalty" as inclusive of "tax") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.6 Tw
(in other chapters and its failure to do so here seems wholly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(unwarranted by section 7806\(b\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.6 Td
2.85 Tw
(In the final analysis, the majority's approach essentially) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(imposes a clear-statement rule on Congress, making the AIA) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(applicable to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exactions, regardless of statutory language) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.03 Tw
(and in disregard of apparent Congressional intent, unless Con-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.92 Tw
(gress had the foresight to expressly exempt an exaction from) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.16 Tw
(the AIA. The majority concedes, as it must, that the 111th) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.57 Tw
(Congress could have exempted the individual mandate from) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.43 Tw
(the AIA, but it suggests that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only way) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress could) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.2 Tw
(avoid the AIA's bar on immediate judicial review of the ACA) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
(is by amending the AIA itself to include an express exemption) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.55 Tw
(for the ACA or \(in what amounts to the same thing\) by refer-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.84 Tw
(encing the AIA by name in the ACA. That is, the majority) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(seems to believe that a clear-statement rule is operative here,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.66 Tw
(and that absent a clear statement regarding the inapplicability) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.03 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(I do not suggest that "we [should] infer from ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.03 Tw
(6665\(a\)\(2\) a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(categorical) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.58 Tw
(exclusion) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( from the term `tax' of all non-Chapter 68 penalties." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 31) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.23 Tw
(\(emphasis added\). Rather, the fact that Congress has directed us to treat) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
2.53 Tw
(some) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( "penalties" as "taxes" simply makes it less likely that Congress) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.14 Tw
(desired this result where it enacted no such direction \(and in fact expressly) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(rejected the term "tax" for the term "penalty"\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(76) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
248 0 obj
4209
endobj
246 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 247 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 77 77
250 0 obj
<<
/Length 251 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.55 Tw
0 Tc
(of the AIA, it must apply to any and all exactions. Given that) Tj
0 -13 Td
5.17 Tw
(the Supreme Court has never recognized such a clear-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(statement rule, it seems to me that this turns the ordinary prin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(ciples of statutory interpretation on their head.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.67 Tw
(As Justice Kennedy recently recognized for a plurality of) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.01 Tw
(the Court, clear-statement rules are designed to "avoid appli-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.8 Tw
(cations of otherwise unambiguous statutes that would intrude) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.13 Tw
(on sensitive domains in a way that Congress is unlikely to) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.34 Tw
(have intended had it considered the matter." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Spector v. Nor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(wegian Cruise Line Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. 119, 139 \(2005\) \(plurality) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(op.\). Justice Kennedy even warned in his plurality opinion) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(against "convert[ing] the clear statement rule from a principle) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(of interpretive caution into a trap for an unwary Congress.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( That seems to be precisely what the majority does today.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.28 Tw
(Presumably because the majority believes such a clear-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(statement rule applies, it asserts that "[t]o infer an intent on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(the part of the 2010 Congress to implicitly exempt this pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(enforcement challenge from the AIA bar would be tantamount) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.34 Tw
(to inferring an implicit repeal of that bar." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 36. But our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.39 Tw
(case is nothing like implicit repeal cases like ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(TVA v. Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 437) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(U.S. 153 \(1978\), which the majority cites in that paragraph.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.85 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hill) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court considered whether continued federal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(appropriations for a dam after notice that construction was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(being challenged under the Endangered Species Act worked) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.64 Tw
(an implicit repeal of the Act with respect to the dam. In an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(implicit repeal case, the Court is forced to consider whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(Congressional action ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(definitively to the contrary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of an earlier) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(enactment works an implied repeal. In our case, on the other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(hand, we are simply asking ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(whether) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Congress ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(created) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(the ACA the sort of exaction to which the earlier act \(the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.25 Tw
(AIA\) applies. This requires us to construe both the word) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
("taxes" under the AIA and the word "penalty" in the ACA,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(applying our ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.04 Tw
(look first to the text itself, and, after finding that it is at best) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(ambiguous, we look to legislative history and Congressional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(purpose. Because the application of the AIA to the ACA is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(77) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
251 0 obj
4013
endobj
249 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 250 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 78 78
253 0 obj
<<
/Length 254 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.25 Tw
0 Tc
(doubt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(this is precisely the question we are deciding ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(sua) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(sponte) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(our case is nothing like implicit repeal cases.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.18 Tw
(Of course, my approach fully recognizes that the AIA has) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.3 Tw
(legal force. But, as the AIA can undoubtedly be sidestepped) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(by any Congress as it creates a new exaction \(at the very least,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.02 Tw
(in the majority's view, by a clear statement that the AIA is not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(to apply\), the AIA ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(is) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( non-binding on future Congresses. When) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(courts determine the application of the AIA to the ACA, they) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(are only considering the application of one Congressional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(enactment to a later one. Because one Congress cannot bind) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(a later one, the 111th Congress was fully within its preroga-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(tive to indicate, even if only implicitly, that the AIA should) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(not apply. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States v. Winstar Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 518 U.S. 839,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.4 Tw
(872 \(1996\) \(plurality op.\) \(quoting Blackstone for "the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(centuries-old concept that one legislature may not bind the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(legislative authority of its successors"\). The independent legal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(force of the AIA does not spring from the fact that it can trap) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(future, unwary Congresses, but rather from the fact that we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(must seek to harmonize its terms with that of future legisla-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(tion. That is, the AIA is not binding on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Congress) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, it is binding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(us, the judiciary) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.78 Tw
(Finally, as for the majority's suggestion that policy argu-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(ments favor its position because a contrary holding "might) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(have serious long-term consequences for the Secretary's reve-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(nue collection," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 38, I would simply note again that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.76 Tw
(Secretary of the Treasury is a party before us and argues that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.8 Tw
(the AIA does not apply. Indeed, I cannot find a Supreme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(Court case where the AIA has been applied over the objection) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the Secretary.) Tj
145.5 -26 Td
(3.) Tj
-133.5 -26 Td
1.36 Tw
(The majority suggests that the issue presented here is one) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(of "context," and I agree. The majority accepts "the Sixth Cir-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(cuit's general observation that there are `contexts' in which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(the law treats `taxes' and `penalties' as mutually exclusive") Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(78) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
254 0 obj
3630
endobj
252 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 239 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 253 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 79 79
256 0 obj
<<
/Length 257 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.51 Tw
0 Tc
(and explains that "[t]he question here is whether the AIA is) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.34 Tw
(one of these `contexts.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ante) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( p. 24 n.4 \(internal quotation) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.73 Tw
(marks omitted\). To my mind, the proper question is not) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.5 Tw
(whether "taxes" and "penalties" are always "mutually exclu-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.04 Tw
(sive" under the AIA, but whether Congress, in creating a) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.57 Tw
(later-enacted exaction, intended to create a "tax" for purposes) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.38 Tw
(of the AIA. But the more important question of "context" is) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(this: whether, in light of the context provided by Congress's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.55 Tw
(deliberate decision to designate the individual mandate's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.58 Tw
(exaction a "penalty" rather than a "tax" and the evidence of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.33 Tw
(Congress's desire to erect no jurisdictional bar to immediate) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(judicial review of the ACA, we should nonetheless interpret) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(the ACA as creating a "tax" within the meaning of the AIA.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.03 Tw
(My effort here, to marshal the historical, jurisprudential, inter-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(pretive, and, yes, commonsense factors necessary to answer) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.33 Tw
(this question, persuades me that we should not. Given this) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.7 Tw
(larger context, I do not believe that one interpretation of near) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.14 Tw
(century-old AIA casescases that fail to devote enough) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.2 Tw
(space to the AIA analysis to even spell out their reason-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.03 Tw
(ingshould carry the day. If the Supreme Court's vacillations) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.63 Tw
(concerning the proper interpretation of the AIA teach us any-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(thing, they teach us that context matters.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
131.7 -26.3 Td
(* * * *) Tj
-119.7 -26.3 Td
2.33 Tw
(Because I do not believe that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lipke) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(George) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( instruct) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(courts to eschew our ordinary methods of statutory interpreta-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(tion and I do not agree that the AIA reaches ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( exactions) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.6 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Justice Powell summarized the history of the AIA as follows, in part:) Tj
8 -16.2 Td
1.15 Tw
([T]he Court's unanimous opinion in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Williams Packing) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( indicates) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.03 Tw
(that the case was meant to be the capstone to judicial construction) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(of the Act. It spells an end to a cyclical pattern of allegiance to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.65 Tw
(the plain meaning of the Act, followed by periods of uncertainty) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(caused by a judicial departure from that meaning, and followed) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(in turn by the Court's rediscovery of the Act's purpose. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
-18 -16.2 Td
1.19 Tw
(Bob Jones Univ.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 742. Rediscoveries of congressional intent) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(abound in the law and should not surprise us. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -378.05 m 300 -378.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(79) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
257 0 obj
4014
endobj
255 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 256 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 80 80
260 0 obj
<<
/Length 261 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.31 Tw
0 Tc
(though by its terms it is limited to "taxes," I cannot join the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.23 Tw
(majority. Where Congress expressly rejected the term "tax" in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(favor of "penalty," and where it appears that application of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(AIA would do little to further the purposes of the AIA, but) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(would do much to frustrate the Affordable Care Act's reforms) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(desired by the Congress that approved the Act, I would hold) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(that the AIA does not strip us of jurisdiction. Thus, I would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(reach \(and I do indeed reach\) the merits of appellants' chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(lenges.) Tj
118.41 -26 Td
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The Act) Tj
-106.41 -26 Td
.75 Tw
(After a months-long national debate, the Patient Protection) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(and Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(2010. Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(amended by) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 \(2010\). The Affordable Care) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.33 Tw
(Act is comprised of a half-dozen initiatives designed to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(reduce the costs of health care and the number of Americans) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(who remain uninsured.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.48 Tw
(First, the Act creates "health benefit exchanges" in each) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(state, which are regulated to increase transparency concerning) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(premium increases and claim denials and which offer market-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(based incentives tied to increases in efficiency and better) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(health outcomes. 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(18031\(e\), \(g\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.57 Tw
(Second, the Act prevents insurers from rejecting applicants) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(with preexisting conditions \(the "guaranteed issue" require-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(ment\) and bars insurers from charging higher premiums to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(those with serious medical conditions or a history of past ill-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(ness \(the "community rating" requirement\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.6 Tw
(300gg ) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(300gg-3. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.28 Tw
(Third, the Act makes more Americans eligible for Medic-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.35 Tw
(aid, and to many of those who earn too much to receive Med-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(icaid it grants tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(premiums and pledges federal dollars to reduce out-of-pocket) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(80) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
261 0 obj
3318
endobj
259 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 260 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 81 81
263 0 obj
<<
/Length 264 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.8 Tw
0 Tc
(expenses. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
4.8 Tw
(1396a\(10\)\(A\)\(i\)\(VIII\), 18071; 26 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(36B.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.08 Tw
(Fourth, the Act requires that individuals keep up "minimum) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.58 Tw
(essential [health insurance] coverage." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.58 Tw
(5000A. In partic-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.53 Tw
(ular, it directs that "[a]n applicable individual shall for each) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.28 Tw
(month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.88 Tw
(any [applicable] dependent . . ., is covered under minimum) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.55 Tw
(essential coverage for such month." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellants term this) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.32 Tw
(the "individual mandate," and it is the chief target of their) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.78 Tw
(suit. Appellants' Br. 3. Congress found that hospitals pro-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(vided $43 billion in uncompensated care to the uninsured in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.58 Tw
(2009, and that these costs were shifted onto insured individu-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.3 Tw
(als, "increas[ing] family premiums by on average over $1,000) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.13 Tw
(a year." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.13 Tw
(18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). It also found that, "[b]y) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.28 Tw
(significantly lowering the number of the uninsured, the [mini-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.38 Tw
(mum coverage] requirement, together with the other provi-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.56 Tw
(sions of th[e] Act, will lower health insurance premiums." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.3 Td
1.47 Tw
(Congress created two religious exemptions to the individ-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.33 Tw
(ual mandate: a religious conscience exemption and a health-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.28 Tw
(care sharing ministry exemption. 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(5000A\(d\)\(2\). I) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.14 Tw
(discuss the particulars of these exemptions in Part VIII, where) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(I consider appellants' First Amendment claims.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.44 Tw
(Fifth, the Act created tax incentives making it more afford-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
2.55 Tw
(able for small businesses to offer health insurance to their) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(employees. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(45R.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.64 Tw
(Finally, the Act required "applicable large employers . . .) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.14 Tw
(to offer to its full-time employees \(and their dependents\) the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.41 Tw
(opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.15 Tw
(eligible employer-sponsored plan" if at least one full-time) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.42 Tw
(employee is receiving federal subsidies for health insurance.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.8 Td
1.12 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.12 Tw
(4980H\(a\). Appellants call this the "employer mandate.") Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appellants' Br. 3.) Tj
12 -25.4 Td
2 Tw
(Appellants Michele Waddell, Joanne Merrill, and Liberty) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
1.5 Tw
(University assert an array of constitutional challenges to the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(81) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
264 0 obj
3814
endobj
262 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 263 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 82 82
266 0 obj
<<
/Length 267 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.81 Tw
0 Tc
(Act's individual and employer mandates and request declara-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.55 Tw
(tory and injunctive relief. They allege that the mandates are) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.16 Tw
(outside Congress's Article I powers and that the individual) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(mandate's religious exemptions effect violations of the First) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.11 Tw
(Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(well as the equal protection component of the Fifth Amend-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(ment's Due Process Clause. Appellants' chief contention is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(that the individual mandate was not validly enacted pursuant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(to Congress's commerce power because it regulates what they) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(call "inactivity." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1. The district court carefully parsed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(appellants' arguments and dismissed their suit pursuant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.32 Tw
(Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\), concluding that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(appellants had failed to state a legally sufficient claim. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Liberty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(University, Inc. v. Geithner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611 \(W.D. Va.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2010\). For the following reasons, I would affirm.) Tj
53.466 -26 Td
(III.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Constitutionality, Inactivity Aside) Tj
-41.466 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
(Putting aside appellants' "inactivity" argument, to which I) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(return in Parts IV and V, I first consider whether the Act is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.51 Tw
(otherwise authorized under Congress's "power to regulate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(zalez v. Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. 1, 16-17 \(2005\). In particular, I ask) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(whether the Act runs afoul of the teachings of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.56 Tw
(v. Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, two cases in which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(the Supreme Court enforced limits on the Commerce Clause) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(so as not to "convert congressional authority under the Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(merce Clause to a general police power." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 514 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(549, 567 \(1995\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 529 U.S. 598, 617-19 \(2000\).) Tj
88.302 -26 Td
1.2 Tw
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-76.302 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the Supreme Court struck down two) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.23 Tw
(congressional enactments because the objects of regula-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(tionthe possession of guns in school zones in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, vio-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.54 Tw
(lence against women in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(were noneconomic.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(Affirming that "Congress' commerce authority includes the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(power to regulate those activities having substantial relation) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(82) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
267 0 obj
4051
endobj
265 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 266 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 83 83
269 0 obj
<<
/Length 270 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.08 Tw
0 Tc
(to interstate commerce, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(i.e.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, those activities that substantially) Tj
0 -13 Td
.1 Tw
(affect interstate commerce," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( held that gun possession in) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.32 Tw
(schools did not substantially affect interstate commerce. 514) Tj
0 -13 Td
.45 Tw
(U.S. at 559-60 \(internal citations omitted\). The Court worried) Tj
0 -13 Td
.15 Tw
(that to identify the effect of guns in schools on interstate com-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.11 Tw
(merce it "would have to pile inference upon inference in a) Tj
0 -13 Td
.66 Tw
(manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority) Tj
0 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.6 Tw
(sort retained by the States." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 567. If gun possession in) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(schools were held to be substantially related to interstate com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(merce simply because such incidents harmed our "national) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(productivity," then "Congress could regulate any activity that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(it found was related to the economic productivity of individ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(ual citizens" and it would be "difficult to perceive any limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.7 Tw
(tion on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(enforcement or education where States historically have been) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(sovereign." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 564.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.87 Tw
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( further clarified the holding of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. The Court) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(explained that "a fair reading of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( shows that the noneco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(nomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.89 Tw
(our decision in that case." 529 U.S. at 610. Without "express) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(congressional findings regarding the effects upon interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.78 Tw
(commerce of gun possession in a school zone," the Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(refused to find a substantial effect upon interstate commerce,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.56 Tw
(as it believed "the link between gun possession and . . . inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(state commerce was attenuated." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 612. The Court noted) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(that it has "upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(activity only where that activity is economic in nature." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.01 Tw
(613. Because the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court found that "[g]ender-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.9 Tw
(motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(phrase, economic activity" and that their effects on interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(commerce \(many of which were expressly enumerated by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.45 Tw
(Congress\) are "attenuated," it struck down the challenged) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(congressional regulation of these crimes. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 613, 615. As) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.59 Tw
(it did in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court emphasized that the "regulation . . .) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(of intrastate violence . . . has always been the province of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(States" and affirmed that "[t]he Constitution requires a dis-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(83) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
270 0 obj
4260
endobj
268 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 269 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 84 84
272 0 obj
<<
/Length 273 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.58 Tw
0 Tc
(tinction between what is truly national and what is truly) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(local." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 617-18.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.03 Tw
(Without doubt, appellants are correct to insist that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13 Td
2.4 Tw
(and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( remind us that any formulation of the Com-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.48 Tw
(merce Clause must admit to limiting principles that distin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.6 Tw
(guish the "truly national" from the "truly local." But the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.45 Tw
(concern directly animating ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(the noneco-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(nomic character of the regulated activitiesis not present in) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(this case, where the failure to obtain health insurance is mani-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(festly an economic fact with direct effects on the interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(markets for both health insurance and health services. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *11-12 \(Martin,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(J.\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d, at ___, 2011 WL at *94, *106 \(Marcus,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(J., dissenting\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.4 Tw
(Nor can it be said that health insurance or health services) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(have "always been the province of the states" in the way that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(education, family law, and criminal law have been. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(529 U.S. at 618. Since the Social Security Act of 1965, Pub.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, established Medicare and Medic-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(aid benefits, the federal government has been the single larg-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(est provider in the interstate health insurance market and the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(largest purchaser in the health services market. Federal dollars) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(have accounted for more than one-quarter of all health spend-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ing each year since 1974; in 2008, Americans spent $2.3 bil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(lion on health services, of which the federal government paid) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(more than $815 millionnearly 35%. Ctrs. for Medicare &) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(Medicaid Servs., National Health Expenditure Amounts by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(Type of Expenditure and Source of Funds: Calendar Years) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.44 Tw
(1965-2019. The year 1974 also saw the passage of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.9 Tw
(Employee Retirement Income Act \(ERISA\), which has a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
("broadly worded" and "clearly expansive" preemption provi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.28 Tw
(sion. 29 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
5.28 Tw
(1144\(a\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(Breiner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 532 U.S. 141, 146 \(2001\). Through ERISA, as well) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(as later enactments like the Health Insurance Portability and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(1936, the federal government has come to occupy much of the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(84) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
273 0 obj
3940
endobj
271 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 258 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 272 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 85 85
275 0 obj
<<
/Length 276 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(field of the regulation of health benefits, and many state and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.04 Tw
(local attempts to regulate health insurance have been held pre-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.12 Tw
(empted. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(475 F.3d 180 \(4th Cir. 2007\) \(holding Maryland's Fair Share) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(Health Care Fund Act, which regulated employer health care) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(spending, preempted by ERISA, as "ERISA establishes com-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4 Tw
(prehensive federal regulation of employers' provisions of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(benefits to their employees"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(but see ) Tj
(Metropolitan Life Ins.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.14 Tw
(Co. v. Mass.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. 724 \(1985\) \(holding that state) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.24 Tw
(mandated-benefit law survives ERISA preemption as a law) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.35 Tw
(that "regulates insurance, banking, or securities" within the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.15 Tw
(meaning of ERISA's savings clause\). Given nearly half a cen-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2 Tw
(tury of extensive federal involvement in the national health) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.87 Tw
(insurance and health services sectors, it seems clear that) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
2.75 Tw
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s interest in protecting areas of tradi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tional state sovereignty is not directly implicated.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.56 Tw
(That said, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( do remind us that the scope) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(of the Commerce Clause is finite and that its jurisprudence) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.7 Tw
(must admit to bounding principles. Thus courts must assure) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.61 Tw
(themselves that upholding the Act under the Commerce) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Clause would not effectively create a federal police power. ) Tj
92.736 -26.7 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Substantial Effects) Tj
-80.736 -26.6 Td
2.73 Tw
(Appellants argue that if we were to hold that failure to) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(obtain insurance substantially affects interstate commerce, we) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.94 Tw
(would be forced to find that the failure to purchase ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(any) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( mar-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.45 Tw
(keted product substantially affects interstate commerce. Thus,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.13 Tw
(they quote ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida ex rel. Bondi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, where the district court for) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(the Northern District of Florida found the Act unconstitutional) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.63 Tw
(in part because it believed that a Commerce Clause broad) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(enough to authorize the Act must also support purchase man-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(dates for broccoli or GM cars. Appellants' Reply Br. 9 \(quot-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.71 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bondi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d at ___, ___, 2011 WL 285683, at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.5 Tw
(*24\). The Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.94 Tw
(that point, expressed similar fears that there are no "cogniza-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(85) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
276 0 obj
3904
endobj
274 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 275 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 86 86
279 0 obj
<<
/Length 280 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.45 Tw
0 Tc
(ble, judicially administrable limiting principles." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(F. 3d at ___, 2011 WL at *54. This is not so.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.18 Tw
(I begin by noting that whether failure to purchase insurance) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
3.57 Tw
(substantially affects interstate commerce relies on a great) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.55 Tw
(number of factual determinations. These are to be made not) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.1 Tw
(by the courts but by Congress, an institution with far greater) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.33 Tw
(ability to gather and critically evaluate the relevant informa-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.17 Tw
(tion. As the Supreme Court noted in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, "[i]n assessing the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.13 Tw
(scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, . . .) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.39 Tw
([our] task . . . is a modest one. We need not determine) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.75 Tw
(whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, sub-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.62 Tw
(stantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(a `rational basis' exists for so concluding." 545 U.S. at 22.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.67 Tw
(The Act's effects on interstate commerce depend in large) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.97 Tw
(part on an unusual feature of the health care market. By fed-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.96 Tw
(eral law, a hospital participating in Medicare must stabilize) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.11 Tw
(any patient who arrives at its emergency room, regardless of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.78 Tw
(the patient's ability to pay for treatment, Emergency Medical) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.57 Tw
(Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.57 Tw
(1395dd\(b\)\(1\),) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.28 Tw
(and many states impose similar requirements, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, H.R.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
6.41 Tw
(Rep. No. 99-241\(III\), at 5 \(1985\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(reprinted in) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 1986) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.18 Tw
(U.S.C.C.A.N. 726, 726-27 \(noting that "at least 22 states have) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.28 Tw
(enacted statutes or issued regulations requiring the provision) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.9 Tw
(of limited medical services whenever an emergency situation) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.31 Tw
(exists" and that "many state court rulings impose a common) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.7 Tw
(law duty on doctors and hospitals to provide necessary emer-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.18 Tw
(gency care"\). As a result, the uninsured often receive care that) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.9 Tw
(they are unable to pay for: in 2008, hospitals provided $43) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.75 Tw
(billion in uncompensated care to the uninsured. 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.57 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.57 Tw
(18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). To cope with these costs, hospitals increase) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.72 Tw
(the price of health care services, which in turn leads to rising) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.15 Tw
(health insurance premiums; Congress found that "[t]his cost-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.03 Tw
(shifting increases family premiums by on average over $1,000) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(a year." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.3 Td
0 Tw
(Recognizing these direct effects on the health insurance and) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.9 Tw
(health services markets does not require us to "pile inference) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(86) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
280 0 obj
3879
endobj
278 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 279 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 87 87
282 0 obj
<<
/Length 283 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(upon inference" in the way linking noneconomic acts like the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.25 Tw
(possession of guns in schools or gender-motivated violence to) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(interstate commerce might have done in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
2.11 Tw
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 514 U.S. at 567; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 529 U.S. at 615. In) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
2.95 Tw
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Court rejected the Government's argument that) Tj
0 -13 Td
4 Tw
(gun possession in schools substantially affected interstate) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(commerce due to the general "costs of crime" or because "the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.55 Tw
(education process," which "in turn, will result in a less pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.08 Tw
(ductive citizenry." 514 U.S. at 564. Likewise, the Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(rejected Congress's findings in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( because they "fol-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(low[ed] the but-for causal chain from the initial occurrence of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(violent crime . . . to every attenuated effect upon interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(commerce," chiefly "deterring potential victims" from inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.46 Tw
(state travel, employment, general commercial transactions,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.54 Tw
("diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(other costs, and decreasing the supply of and demand for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(interstate products." 529 U.S. at 615 \(quoting H.R. Rep. No.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.22 Tw
(103-711, at 385 \(1990\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(reprinted in) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.88 Tw
(1803, 1853\). Where the proffered "substantial effects" in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.37 Tw
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( were attenuated, here the effects are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(direct: considered as a class \(per ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s aggre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(gation principle, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Wickard v. Filburn) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 317 U.S. 111, 127-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(28 \(1942\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. at 22; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(post) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( pp. 88-90\), those who) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(fail to purchase health insurance will seek and receive medi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(cal care they cannot afford; the cost of that care \($43 billion) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.1 Tw
(in 2008\) is borne by the hospitals, which are forced to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(increase the price of health care services.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.07 Tw
(And recognizing that the uninsured's passing on $43 billion) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(in health care costs to the insured constitutes a substantial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(effect on interstate commerce in no way authorizes a purchase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(mandate for broccoli or any other vegetable. The health care) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(market is unique in that its product \(medical care\) must be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(provided even to those who cannot pay, which allows some) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(\(the uninsured\) to consume care on another's \(the insured's\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(dime. Here the substantial effect on commerce comes not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.56 Tw
(from simply manipulating demand in a market, as it would in) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(87) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
283 0 obj
4346
endobj
281 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 282 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 88 88
285 0 obj
<<
/Length 286 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.18 Tw
0 Tc
(the case of a broccoli or GM car mandate, but from correcting) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.14 Tw
(a massive market failure caused by tremendous negative) Tj
0 -13 Td
.26 Tw
(externalities. Thus, we need not decide today whether the rea-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(soning of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which were both concerned in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(part about limiting supply in interstate markets for fungible) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(goods, extends to artificially inflating demand via a purchase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(mandate. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 317 U.S. at 128 \(recognizing that even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(wheat grown for home consumption "overhangs the market) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(and if induced by rising prices tends to flow into the market) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(and check price increases"\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. at 19 \(noting that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.7 Tw
("high demand in the interstate market"and consequent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(higher pricesis likely to "draw [home consumed] marijuana) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(into that market"\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.9 Tw
(For these reasons, I would hold that the failure to obtain) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.04 Tw
(health insurance substantially affects the interstate markets for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.24 Tw
(health insurance and health care services. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Accord ) Tj
(Thomas) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *12 \(Martin, J.\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.23 Tw
(*24-25 \(Sutton, J.\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(*106 \(Marcus, J., dissenting\).) Tj
12.924 -26 Td
(IV.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Universal Participation in the Health Care Market) Tj
-.924 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(Nor need I decide today whether the Commerce Clause dis-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(criminates between activity and inactivity. Appellants con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(cede that virtually all persons will voluntarily enter into the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(interstate health services market in their lifetimes, and they) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(concede further, as they must, that this constitutes activity in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.38 Tw
(commerce. Yet appellants insist that the Commerce Clause) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(requires Congress to adopt an extremely narrow time-horizon:) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(it may regulate persons seeking health care, but ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only once) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(they have sought it) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Appellants' Br. 34. A faithful application) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s teachings requires us to reject this) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(contention.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3 Tw
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( introduced the aggregation principle into Com-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(merce Clause jurisprudence: "That appellee's own contribu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(tion to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(88) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
286 0 obj
3874
endobj
284 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 285 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 89 89
288 0 obj
<<
/Length 289 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.81 Tw
0 Tc
(enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.85 Tw
(where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.48 Tw
(many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." 317 U.S.) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(at 127-28. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( reaffirmed this approach, noting that Com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(merce Clause analysis looks to the regulated "activities, taken) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(in the aggregate." 545 U.S. at 22.) Tj
12 -26 Td
(Further, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( emphasized that) Tj
10 -26 Td
1.55 Tw
(Congress [need not] legislate with scientific exacti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.01 Tw
(tude. When Congress decides that the "total inci-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.34 Tw
(dence" of a practice poses a threat to a national) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(market, it may regulate the entire class. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(States v. Perez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 402 U.S. at 154-55 \("[W]hen it is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(it may do so."\). In this vein, we have reiterated that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(when a general regulatory statute bears a substantial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(relation to commerce, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de minimis) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( character of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(individual instances arising under that statute is of no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(consequence.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
1.62 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 17 \(some internal quotation marks and citations omit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ted\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.4 Tw
(Under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we are to take the view of the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(legislators, not those who are regulated. Courts look at the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(aggregated impact of an activity, not the impact of individu-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(als; the Commerce Clause authorizes the regulation of an "en-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.9 Tw
(tire class," regardless of "the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(de minimis) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( character of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(individual instances." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We are to put aside "the mechanical) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.94 Tw
(application of legal formulas" and look instead to "the actual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 317 U.S. at 120, 124. Indeed, it bears repeating, our) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(task in deciding Commerce Clause challenges "is a modest) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(one" in which we ask "only whether a `rational basis' exists") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(for Congress to find a substantial effect on interstate com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(merce. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 22.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(89) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
289 0 obj
3677
endobj
287 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 288 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 90 90
291 0 obj
<<
/Length 292 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.04 Tw
0 Tc
(Considering that hospitals are required to provide certain) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(care to the uninsured, that illness and accidents are nothing if) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(not unpredictable, and that the costs of medical care are often) Tj
0 -13 Td
.96 Tw
(catastrophic, I have no hesitation in concluding the Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.94 Tw
(rationally determined that addressing the $43 billion annual) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured could only be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(done via regulation ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(before) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the uninsured are in need of emer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(gency medical treatment. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( teach that we are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(to take the longer view of legislators; it is difficult to imagine) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(that Commerce Clause analysis would aggregate individuals) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(and allow regulation of entire classes but then, when legisla-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(tors confront a problem requiring a remedy before emergen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(cies \(and their ever-growing costs\) occur, refuse to permit) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(them to adopt the time-horizon necessary to enact a solution.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(Accord ) Tj
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *93 \(Marcus,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(J., dissenting\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.04 Tw
(Thus, as Congress rationally found virtually universal par-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(ticipation in the interstate health care market over the course) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(of residents' lifetimes, the Act does not present an issue of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(congressional regulation of inactivity. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Accord ) Tj
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *15 \(Martin, J.\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at *27-30) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(\(Sutton, J.\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *93-*94) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(\(Marcus, J., dissenting\). Rather, courts are asked to pass on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(regulation of voluntary participation in the interstate health) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(care market that, to be effective, must be preemptive. As it is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(clear that the regulated behavior substantially affects inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(state commerce and appellants bring no other challenge to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, I would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(hold the Act to be a proper exercise of congressional power.) Tj
86.736 -26 Td
1.2 Tw
(V.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Regulating Inactivity) Tj
-74.736 -26 Td
2.6 Tw
(But even if I were to assume that the uninsured are, in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(appellants' phrase, "inactive in commerce," I would be bound) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(to uphold the Act. Despite appellants' several arguments, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(Commerce Clause is not offended by the regulation of "inac-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(tivity" or, in proper circumstances, by a purchase mandate.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(90) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
292 0 obj
3840
endobj
290 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 277 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 291 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 91 91
294 0 obj
<<
/Length 295 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(Appellants urge that the Act is an "unprecedented attempt) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.44 Tw
(to force private citizens who have decided not to participate) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.07 Tw
(in commerce to engage in commerce by mandating that they) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.21 Tw
(purchase . . . health insurance . . . ." Appellants' Br. 3. This) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(argument presents two distinct questions: \(1\) "[w]hether Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(gress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.15 Tw
(private citizen's inactivity in commerce"; and \(2\) whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(such regulation can include "forc[ing] [a] citizen to participate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(in commerce by mandating that she purchase a [commodity]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(. . . or pay a penalty for noncompliance." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1. I consider) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(these questions in turn.) Tj
46.644 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Regulating "Inactivity in Commerce") Tj
-34.644 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
(Appellants characterize Mss. Waddell's and Merrill's "de-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(cision not to purchase health insurance and to otherwise pri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.5 Tw
(vately manage her own healthcare" as "inactivity in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.31 Tw
(commerce," which they claim is beyond the reach of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(Commerce Clause. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 1. As the following brief review of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(the case law will show, this broader Commerce Clause chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(lengewhether it reaches non-market participants \(those "in-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.01 Tw
(activ[e] in commerce"\)has already been litigated. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(Supreme Court's "case law firmly establishes" that Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.53 Tw
(may regulate those who have opted not to participate in a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(market when their self-provisioning, considered in the aggre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(gate, "substantially affect[s]" an interstate market. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.62 Tw
(U.S. at 17. After explaining why appellants' broader chal-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(lenge is foreclosed, I consider the far narrower challenge to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the Act that survives.) Tj
50.976 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Regulating Non-Market Participants) Tj
-38.976 -26 Td
.4 Tw
(Nearly seventy years ago, in the famous case of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard v.) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(Filburn) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(the Commerce Clause to regulate Mr. Filburn's private, non-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(commercial production of wheat. The Court squarely con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(fronted the question: it began its discussion by noting that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
("[t]he question would merit little consideration . . . except for) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(91) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
295 0 obj
3551
endobj
293 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 294 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 92 92
298 0 obj
<<
/Length 299 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
(the fact that this Act extends federal regulation to production) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(sumption on the farm." 317 U.S. at 118. Just six years ago, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(Court reaffirmed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s vitality in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, explaining, ) Tj
22 -26 Td
1.18 Tw
(Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.91 Tw
(regulate purely local activities that are part of an) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(economic `class of activities' that have a substantial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(effect on interstate commerce. As we stated in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wic-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(kard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, "even if appellee's activity be local ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and though) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(it may not be regarded as commerce) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, it may still,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.78 Tw
(exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(commerce.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
2.46 Tw
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. at 17 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 317 U.S. at 125\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(\(emphasis added\). The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Court made clear that "Congress) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself `com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(mercial,' in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(regulation of the interstate market in that commodity." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(18. Applying this principle, the Court upheld the regulation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(individuals who grew marijuana solely for "home consump-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.01 Tw
(tion"that is, it allowed Congress to regulate individuals who) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(deliberately chose not to participate in commerce. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.96 Tw
(Thus, appellants' true quarrel with the Act is more limited) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(than their language sometimes suggests. With subheadings) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(like ") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( does not support the district court's conclusion) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(that private economic decisions can be regulated under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.68 Tw
(Commerce Clause," appellants' briefs muddy their real point.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(Appellants' Br. 20. As just described, it is well settled that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(Congress may regulate the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(private, noncommercial) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( economic) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.66 Tw
(activities of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(non-market participants) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( when their self-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(provisioning \(growing wheat or marijuana for themselves\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(substantially affects an interstate market. Appellants contend) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(that this "firmly establishe[d]" Commerce Clause law, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(545 U.S. at 17, is inapplicable because ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(92) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
299 0 obj
4099
endobj
297 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 298 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 93 93
301 0 obj
<<
/Length 302 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
("involved voluntary ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(activity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, whereas the Act regulates volun-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.46 Tw
(tary ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(inactivity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." Appellants' Br. 19. To the extent that "volun-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.3 Tw
(tary ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(inactivity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(" again suggests deliberate non-participation in) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.88 Tw
(the market, this fails to distinguish ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; yet appellants also) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.37 Tw
(seem to be raising a different point. "[I]t was the fact that Mr.) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.1 Tw
(Filburn actively grew wheat beyond the quota, even if for per-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.22 Tw
(sonal use, that was significant in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(," as "it was that) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
5.76 Tw
(activity that constituted economic activity. By contrast,) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.23 Tw
([appellants] have exerted no effort and used no resources." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.6 Td
.05 Tw
(at 21. It is ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(this) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( "distinction between ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(activity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(inactivity) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.6 Td
9.38 Tw
(at 19) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(absolute) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( inactivity, not just inactivity \(non-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
3.18 Tw
(participation\) in commercethat carries the true thrust of) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(appellants' argument.) Tj
77.412 -25 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Regulating the "Inactive") Tj
-65.412 -25.1 Td
2.15 Tw
(Before I can consider this narrower argument, I must be) Tj
-12 -12.6 Td
.96 Tw
(sure I understand exactly what appellants mean by it. Appel-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.97 Tw
(lants say that "Mr. Filburn actively grew wheat beyond the) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.94 Tw
(quota, even if for personal use" while Ms. Waddell and Mrs.) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
4.48 Tw
(Merrill "have exerted no effort and used no resources.") Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.3 Tw
(Appellants' Br. 21. But appellants expressly state that "Miss) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.18 Tw
(Waddell and Mrs. Merrill have voluntarily and deliberately) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
1.03 Tw
(decided not to purchase health insurance, but ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(to instead save) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.08 Tw
(for and privately manage health care) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 10 \(emphasis) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
.55 Tw
(added\). It is not clear why "sav[ing] for and privately manag-) Tj
0 -12.6 Td
2.4 Tw
([ing] health care," a species of what economists call "self-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.6 Td
4.7 Tw
(insurance,") Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( requires neither "effort" nor "resources"in) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.07 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.07 Tw
(18091\(a\)\(2\)\(A\) \("In the absence of the [individual) Tj
-10 -10.7 Td
.86 Tw
(mandate], some individuals would make an economic and financial deci-) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.28 Tw
(sion to forego health insurance coverage and attempt to self-insure . . . ."\).) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.14 Tw
(Because individuals who self-insure are unable to shift risk in the way that) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.74 Tw
(market insurance does, self-insurance is far more common among collec-) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
1.61 Tw
(tives or businesses, where it may be efficient. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See generally) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( M. Moshe) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.17 Tw
(Porat, Uri Spiegel, Uzi Yaari, Uri Ben Zion, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Market Insurance Versus Self) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.5 Tw
(Insurance: The Tax-Differential Treatment and Its Social Cost) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 58 J. Risk) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.36 Tw
(& Ins. 657 \(1991\); Patrick L. Brockett, Samuel H. Cox, Jr., and Robert C.) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
1.22 Tw
(Witt, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Insurance Versus Self-Insurance: A Risk Management Perspective) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
.08 Tw
(53 J. Risk & Ins. 242 \(1986\); Isaac Ehrlich, Gary S. Becker, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Market Insur-) Tj
0 -10.8 Td
1 Tw
(ance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 80 J. Pol. Econ. 623 \(1972\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -359.55 m 300 -359.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(93) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
302 0 obj
5073
endobj
300 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 301 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 94 94
304 0 obj
<<
/Length 305 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.58 Tw
0 Tc
(fact, one would imagine that "sav[ing]" requires "resources") Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(\(namely, money\) and that "manag[ing]" requires some "ef-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.2 Tw
(fort." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 10, 21. Though, unlike wheat and marijuana,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.87 Tw
(insurance is intangible, appellants do not suggest that inter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(state markets in intangible goods or services are less subject) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(to regulation under the Commerce Clause than markets in tan-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.52 Tw
(gible goods; thus, it is difficult to see why the legal import of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.06 Tw
(the appellants' "sav[ing]" and "manag[ing]" should differ) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(from that of Mr. Filburn's sowing and harvesting.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.81 Tw
(But even if appellants had said nothing about saving and) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(managing and I accepted that Ms. Waddell and Mrs. Merrill) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.46 Tw
(had truly "exerted no effort and used no resources" with) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.14 Tw
(respect to health insurancethat is, that they had taken no) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(steps to self-insureit is difficult to make out the legal rele-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.84 Tw
(vance of this point. Mr. Filburn and Ms. Raich deliberately) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(chose to meet their own needs rather than enter commerce and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.71 Tw
(purchase goods on the market and thus they, too, "exerted no) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.23 Tw
(effort and used no resources" in connection to the relevant) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.75 Tw
(markets; why are they more susceptible to Commerce Clause) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5 Tw
(regulation than appellants simply because they ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(privately) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
2.05 Tw
(exerted effort and expended resources for a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(noncommercial) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(end?) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
2.62 Tw
(Appellants have provided no express answer, but one is) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(implicit in their arguments: in choosing to act, even privately,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.02 Tw
(with notice of regulation, one can be said to consent or at least) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.17 Tw
(submit to that regulation. Under this view, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.23 Tw
(are distinguishable because they concerned regulated domains) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(which individuals voluntarily entered upon the commence-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(ment of some "activity." Thus, appellants' complaint that "ap-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5.75 Tw
(pellants in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( could avoid Congress' reach by not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(manufacturing or possessing marijuana, but here the Appel-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(lants cannot avoid Congress' reach even if they are not doing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.35 Tw
(anything." Appellants' Br. 19. Appellants express concern) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.2 Tw
(throughout their brief about allowing Congress to "regulate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.31 Tw
([people] because they are legal citizens who merely exist," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(94) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
305 0 obj
3737
endobj
303 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 304 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 95 95
307 0 obj
<<
/Length 308 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.12 Tw
0 Tc
(at 20;) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( likewise, the Eleventh Circuit majority worries that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
("[i]ndividuals subjected to this economic mandate have not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(made a voluntary choice to enter the stream of commerce) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(. . . ." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Florida) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *48. So I will) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(consider the Commerce Clause ramifications of regulating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("everyone.") Tj
25.116 -26.1 Td
(3.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Federalism & Regulations Affecting Everyone) Tj
-13.116 -26.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(I am aware of no "substantial effect" case, in more than a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, that looks beyond) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.7 Tw
(the class of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(activities) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( regulated to the class of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(persons) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(affected. And this is unsurprising, as the dispositive question) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(is whether the object of regulation substantially affects inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(state commerce; what the affected persons have done to con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(sent \(or not\) to the regulation is obviously irrelevant to that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.65 Tw
(inquiry. Appellants claim that their liberty concern springs) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.24 Tw
(from the principles of federalism rather than black-letter) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(Commerce Clause law. Though these principles serve to pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(tect state sovereignty and the resulting division of power) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(helps to secure our liberty, federalism is not an independent) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(font of individual rights.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
.62 Tw
(As Justice Kennedy explained in his concurrence in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.64 Tw
("it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.44 Tw
(by the creation of two governments, not one," as power could) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2 Tw
(be split between state and federal governments even before) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.52 Tw
(each government's powers were further separated among leg-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(islative, executive, and judicial departments. 514 U.S. at 576.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.71 Tw
(Thus, "[s]tate sovereignty is not just an end in itself: `Rather,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.18 Tw
(federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.17 Tw
(diffusion of sovereign power.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(New York v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.53 Tw
(505 U.S. 144, 181 \(1992\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Coleman v. Thompson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.95 Tw
(501 U.S. 722, 759 \(1991\) \(Blackmun, J., dissenting\)\). Feder-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.02 Tw
(alism "enhance[s]" our liberty by disaggregating power; it) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.81 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(It is no coincidence that "voluntary" or "voluntarily" appears twenty-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(eight times in appellants' briefs. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(95) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
308 0 obj
3867
endobj
306 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 307 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 96 96
310 0 obj
<<
/Length 311 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(helps to secure all our individual rights, but it does not create) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.03 Tw
(new ones. The Supreme Court's recent decision in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bond v.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.28 Tw
(United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which granted an individual criminal defendant) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.33 Tw
(standing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to challenge a federal statute on the grounds that it) Tj
0 -13 Td
.85 Tw
(usurped powers reserved to the states and which discussed at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.75 Tw
(length the ways in which federalism protects individual lib-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.38 Tw
(erty, is not to the contrary. 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct.) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.16 Tw
(2355, 2364 \(2011\). Appellants provide no support for their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(suggestion that some novel, heretofore unknown, individual) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(right can spring from the principles of federalism.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.71 Tw
(Federalism was properly invoked in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(where, to police the division of authority between state and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.1 Tw
(federal governments, the Court struck down federal regulation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.97 Tw
(of noneconomic activity within "areas such as criminal law) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(enforcement or education where States historically have been) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(sovereign." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 514 U.S. at 564; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 529 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(at 599. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s concern about the loss of state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.32 Tw
(authority within areas traditionally reserved to the states) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(implicates the division of power between state and federal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(governments and thus goes to the very core of federalism.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(Appellants' individual liberty concerns do not. Appellants) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.33 Tw
(suggest that allowing the Act to touch all U.S. residents,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(whether or not they have voluntarily entered a regulated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(domain, "threatens . . . the bedrock concept[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(] of . . . individ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.4 Tw
(ual freedom." Appellants' Br. 11-12. Federalism does not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(speak to this issue.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.47 Tw
(Nor does any recognized individual right. Appellants' rhet-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(oric sometimes suggests a generalized right to be left alone;) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.64 Tw
(but outside of a limited right to privacy concerning "the most) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(intimate and personal choices a person may make in a life-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.11 Tw
(time, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy,") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(including those "relating to marriage, procreation, contracep-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.3 Tw
(tion, family relationships, child rearing, and education,") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 505 U.S. 833, 851) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(\(1992\), no such right exists. And any such right springing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(from substantive due process would bind the states under the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(96) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
311 0 obj
3998
endobj
309 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 296 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 310 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 97 97
313 0 obj
<<
/Length 314 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.1 Tw
0 Tc
(Fourteenth Amendment as well as the federal government) Tj
0 -13 Td
.53 Tw
(under the Fifth, placing universal regulation outside the reach) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(of any government.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.75 Tw
(Moreover, an extensive body of federal laws, many passed) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.37 Tw
(pursuant to the Commerce Clause, targets all U.S. residents:) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(federal criminal law. Indeed, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( itself concerned the Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(trolled Substances Act and the noncommercial production and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(consumption of marijuana; nowhere in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did the Court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(intimate concern that the federal government was regulating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(the drug use of "everyone . . . just for being alive and residing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(in the United States." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bondi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d. at ___, 2011) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(WL 285683, at *20. Though penalties do not attach until) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(someone has violated the statute, the same is true of the Act's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.45 Tw
(regulation. Of course, appellants suggest that compelling) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(action is less legitimate under the Commerce Clause than pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(hibiting action. I take up that question next.) Tj
89.4 -26 Td
(VI.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Compelling Action) Tj
-77.4 -26 Td
3.91 Tw
(Having established that the regulation of "inactivity in) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(commerce" does not offend the Commerce Clause, I consider) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(whether federal commerce regulation can properly "force [a]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(citizen to participate in commerce by mandating that she pur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(chase a [commodity] . . . or pay a penalty for noncompliance.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appellants' Br. 1.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.88 Tw
(As I explained at length above, the Supreme Court has) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(taught that an enactment is authorized by the Commerce) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(Clause where Congress could rationally conclude that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(object of regulation substantially affects interstate commerce.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(This inquiry looks only at the relation between the object of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(regulation and interstate commerce; the content of the regula-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(tionwhat it compels or prohibitsis irrelevant. Indeed, it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(has long been recognized that "[t]he power of Congress over) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limita-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(tions other than are prescribed in the Constitution." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(97) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
314 0 obj
3495
endobj
312 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 313 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 98 98
317 0 obj
<<
/Length 318 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.03 Tw
0 Tc
(317 U.S. at 124 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Wrightwood Dairy) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.41 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 315 U.S. 110, 119 \(1942\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. at 29) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.41 Tw
(\("[S]tate action cannot circumscribe Congress' plenary com-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
3.44 Tw
(merce power."\). The Necessary and Proper Clause makes) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.7 Tw
(clear that we are to defer to Congress with respect to the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2 Tw
(means it employs to effectuate legitimate ends. U.S. Const.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.83 Tw
(art. I, ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.83 Tw
(8, cl. 18. In combination with the Commerce Clause,) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.97 Tw
(it empowers Congress "`to take all measures necessary or) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.42 Tw
(appropriate to' the effective regulation of the interstate mar-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.75 Tw
(ket." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 545 U.S. at 38 \(Scalia, J., concurring\) \(quoting) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(Shreveport Rate Cases) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 234 U.S. 342, 353 \(1914\)\).) Tj
12 -27.5 Td
.09 Tw
(But even if it were appropriate to review the method of reg-) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
.83 Tw
(ulation Congress has chosen to employ, I would find that the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.25 Tw
(individual mandate fits well within the range of acceptable) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(commercial regulations.) Tj
27.81 -27.4 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The Act Does Not Compel Citizens to Enter) Tj
95.862 -13.8 Td
(Commerce) Tj
-111.672 -27.4 Td
.3 Tw
(I first note that the Act does not "force" any citizen to enter) Tj
-12 -13.8 Td
2 Tw
(commerce. Appellants' Br. 1. Instead, residents are given a) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.52 Tw
(choice between obtaining health insurance \(by market pur-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.75 Tw
(chase or otherwise\) and paying a non-punitive tax penalty) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.31 Tw
(that, by law, is capped at "the national average premium for) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.12 Tw
(qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage.") Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.78 Tw
(26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(5000A\(c\)\(1\)\(B\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.78 Tw
(5000A\(b\)\(1\). As the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
4.21 Tw
(average cost of providing the most basic insurance, this) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.66 Tw
(amount should roughly approximate the expected costs to the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.58 Tw
(regulatory scheme \(in the form of higher premiums\) occa-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
5.81 Tw
(sioned by an individual's failure to procure insurance.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.93 Tw
(Because the uninsured effectively force the rest of the nation) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.33 Tw
(to insure them with respect to basic, stabilizing care, this pen-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.27 Tw
(alty is something like a premium paid into the federal govern-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.24 Tw
(ment, which bears a large share of the shifted costs as the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(largest insurer in the nation.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(98) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
318 0 obj
3580
endobj
316 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 317 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 99 99
320 0 obj
<<
/Length 321 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
58.872 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(History of Compelled Purchases) Tj
-46.872 -26.7 Td
.42 Tw
(Even if the individual mandate were properly characterized) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.17 Tw
(as compelling residents to enter the market, this has long been) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.21 Tw
(an acceptable form of regulation under the Commerce Clause.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.38 Tw
(For instance, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.25 Tw
(tion, acting pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.62 Tw
(requires that motor carriers purchase either liability insurance) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.3 Tw
(or a surety bond in order to ensure that they are able to pay) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.2 Tw
(for damage they may cause. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 49 C.F.R. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.2 Tw
(387. And the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.65 Tw
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(Liability Act of 1980 \(CERCLA\) requires that the owner of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.75 Tw
(property contaminated by a hazardous substance "provide) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.68 Tw
(removal or remedial action"likely requiring resort to the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(marketon pain of liability for punitive damages, even where) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.85 Tw
(the owner bears "no[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.85 Tw
(] culpability or responsibility for the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(contamination" and indeed is entirely "passiv[e]." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(9607\(c\)\(3\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(966 F.2d 837, 846-47 \(4th Cir. 1992\). CERCLA has survived) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.88 Tw
(all Commerce Clause challenges, and it was expressly held a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(proper exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power by the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(Second Circuit Court of Appeals. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Freier v. Westinghouse) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.43 Tw
(Elec. Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 303 F.3d 176, 203 \(2d Cir. 2002\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.11 Tw
(538 U.S. 998 \(2003\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. ) Tj
(United States v. Olin Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 107 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.41 Tw
(1506, 1511 \(11th Cir. 1997\) \(holding CERCLA constitutional) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Commerce Clause legislation as applied to appellants\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
1.75 Tw
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( itself suggests that compelled purchases are per-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(missible. The Court explained:) Tj
22 -26.6 Td
.58 Tw
(It is said, however, that this Act, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(forcing some farm-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.51 Tw
(ers into the market to buy) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( what they could provide) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.58 Tw
(and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(essence of regulating that it lays a restraining hand) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.91 Tw
(on the selfinterest of the regulated and that advan-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(tages from the regulation commonly fall to others.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(99) Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
321 0 obj
3794
endobj
319 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 320 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 100 100
323 0 obj
<<
/Length 324 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -8.4 Td
1.51 Tw
0 Tc
(. . . And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(of the plan of regulation we have nothing to do.) Tj
-22 -26.1 Td
.14 Tw
(317 U.S. at 129 \(emphasis added\). When describing how non-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(commercial wheat production decreased demand for market) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
(wheat, the Court explained that it "forestall[ed] resort to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(market" and "supplies a need of the man who grew it which) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open mar-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(ket." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 127, 128. Though ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( did not involve an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(express purchase mandate, the Court understood that Mr. Fil-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(burn was effectively being "forc[ed] . . . into the market to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(buy" wheat when it rejected his Commerce Clause challenge.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 129.) Tj
5.346 -26.1 Td
(C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Compelled Purchases as Government's Core Function) Tj
6.654 -26.1 Td
8.67 Tw
(Finally, I pause to consider why purchase man-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.1 Tw
(dateswhether they be for health insurance or brocco-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.34 Tw
(lioccasion such fear of federal aggrandizement. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Thomas) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.9 Tw
(More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *32 \(conveying author's) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
6.01 Tw
("lingering intuitionshared by most Americans, I sus-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(pectthat Congress should not be able to compel citizens to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.3 Tw
(buy productions they do not want"\) \(Sutton, J\). Compelled) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.67 Tw
(purchases are the most fundamental function of government) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.79 Tw
(of any sort, and the fact that the government here allowed its) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.95 Tw
(residents additional freedom of choice over these purchases) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.75 Tw
(should diminish, not exacerbate, anxieties about federal tyr-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(anny. ) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
.43 Tw
(Governments exist, most fundamentally, to solve collective) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.42 Tw
(action problems. Core governmental functions, like the provi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.38 Tw
(sion of domestic peace, enforceable property rights, national) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.78 Tw
(defense, and infrastructure, are assigned to government) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.41 Tw
(because the market fails to produce optimal levels of such) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.81 Tw
(public goods.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Since public goods are enjoyed by all, most) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.44 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See generally) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( R.H. Coase, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Lighthouse in Economics) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 17 J.L. &) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.48 Tw
(Econ. 357, 357-360 \(1974\); Paul A. Samuelson, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The Pure Theory of Pub-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(100) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
324 0 obj
3749
endobj
322 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 323 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 101 101
326 0 obj
<<
/Length 327 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
5.6 Tw
0 Tc
(individuals refuse to purchase them themselves, hoping) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(instead that they can free-ride when someone else does. By) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(forcibly collecting tax revenue and using it to purchase public) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(goods, governments are able to solve this collective action) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(problem. Thus, at root, governments are formed precisely to) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(compel purchases of public goods) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(Because hospitals are required to stabilize the uninsured,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(the uninsured are able to pass along much of the cost of their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(health care to the insured.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Solving this problem, as the Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.97 Tw
(attempts to do, creates a public good: lower prices for health) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(services for all citizens. Thus, the Act compels the purchase) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(of a public good, just as the federal government does when it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(collects taxes and uses it to fund national defense.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(Indeed, it is undisputed that Congress would have had the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(power under the Taxing and Spending Clause to raise taxes) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(and use increased revenues to purchase and distribute health) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(insurance for all. It seems quite odd that Congress's attempt) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(to enhance individual freedom by allowing citizens to make) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(their own purchase decisions would give rise to such bloated) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(concerns about a federal power grab. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Thomas More) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.94 Tw
(F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *31 \(Sutton, J.\) \("Few doubt that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.85 Tw
(Congress could pass an equally coercive law under its taxing) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(power . . . ."\).) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
5.62 Tw
(As for the broccoli mandate appellants fear, I have) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.7 Tw
(explained at several points why nothing I have written would) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
.88 Tw
(lic Expenditure) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 36 Rev. Econ. & Statistics 387 \(1954\). Public goods are) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.21 Tw
(goods that are "non-rival" and "non-excludable." "Non-rival" means that) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.15 Tw
(enjoyment of the good by one citizen does not reduce the enjoyment by) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.24 Tw
(another; "non-excludable" means that all citizens will enjoy the good once) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.6 Tw
(it is producednone can be excluded. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( John P. Conley & Chris-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.75 Tw
(topher S. Yoo, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Nonrivalry and Price Discrimination in Copyright Eco-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(nomics) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1801, 1805-11 \(2009\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.08 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In the language of economics, the failure to obtain insurance has "neg-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.13 Tw
(ative externalities"negative effects on those not responsible for the deci-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(sion. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -374.15 m 300 -374.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(101) Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
327 0 obj
3917
endobj
325 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 52 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 326 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 102 102
329 0 obj
<<
/Length 330 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(authorize it. But I note that mandating the purchase \(but ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
3.5 Tw
(the consumption, which would raise serious constitutional) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
3 Tw
(issues\) of broccoli in order to bolster the broccoli market) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.23 Tw
(would, in practical effect, be nothing new. Since the time of) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.28 Tw
(the Founding Fathers, when Alexander Hamilton called for) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.38 Tw
(federal subsidies for domestic manufacturers, the federal gov-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.28 Tw
(ernment has used tax revenues to subsidize various industries.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.8 Td
1.75 Tw
(See ) Tj
(Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Federal Energy Administration) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.63 Tw
(518 F.2d 1051, 1061 \(D.C. Cir. 1975\) \("From earliest days,) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.57 Tw
(the tariff authority given Congress by the Constitution has) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(been understood to apply to the `protective tariff' sponsored) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.11 Tw
(by Alexander Hamilton, a measure focused . . . on the `non-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.81 Tw
(revenue purpose' of protecting domestic industry against for-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.3 Tw
(eign competition."\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(rev'd by ) Tj
(Federal Energy Administration) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.14 Tw
(v. Algonquin SNG, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 426 U.S. 548 \(1976\). Though central-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
3.92 Tw
(ized subsidies are far more efficient than purchase man-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
8.61 Tw
(dateswhich is why a broccoli mandate is purely) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.88 Tw
(fantasticalthey are, in effect, the same. Since they, too, are) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.25 Tw
(clearly within Congress's power under the Taxing and Spend-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.9 Tw
(ing Clause, allowing broccoli purchase mandates would not) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.75 Tw
(increase federal power. For these reasons, I find appellants') Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.23 Tw
(fears to be unfounded. I would reject their novel and unsup-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.66 Tw
(ported suggestion that Commerce Clause jurisprudence ought) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
3.57 Tw
(to discriminate among regulated persons according to the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.14 Tw
(amount of effort or resources they have expended in a given) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.48 Tw
(economic arena. Under seventy years of well-settled law, it is) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.1 Tw
(enough that the behavior regulated \(whether characterized as) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
4.21 Tw
(activity or inactivity\) substantially affects interstate com-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.53 Tw
(merce. Appellants can cite neither case nor constitutional text) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
3.71 Tw
(for their proposed activity/inactivity distinction. They can) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1 Tw
(explain neither why it ought to be relevant to my Commerce) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.2 Tw
(Clause analysis nor why it ought to impel courts to ignore) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.62 Tw
(seventy-year-old law that takes a wholly different approach.) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.33 Tw
(And they cannot even provide a sufficiently concrete defini-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.63 Tw
(tion of "activity" and "inactivity" to allow courts to reliably) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.78 Tw
(apply their distinction. Because I find the individual mandate) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(102) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
330 0 obj
3751
endobj
328 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 315 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 329 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 103 103
332 0 obj
<<
/Length 333 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4 Tw
0 Tc
(to be within the bounds of Congress's commerce power) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.75 Tw
(defined by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wickard) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lopez) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Morrison) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Raich) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, I would) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(reject appellants' Commerce Clause challenge.) Tj
87.414 -26 Td
(VII.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Employer Mandate) Tj
-75.414 -26 Td
6.11 Tw
(Appellants also challenge the Affordable Care Act's) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(employer mandate, arguing that it is not a proper exercise of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. I disagree.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.88 Tw
(It is well settled that Congress may regulate terms of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(employment under the Commerce Clause. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(v. Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 U.S. 100 \(1941\) \(upholding minimum wage) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301 U.S. 1 \(1937\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.78 Tw
(\(upholding National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(bid unfair labor practices\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Employee Retirement Income) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.33 Tw
(1001 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(regulating) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.45 Tw
(employer retirement plans and preempting state regulations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(under the Commerce Clause\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.3 Tw
(1082 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(setting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(minimum funding standards for employer retirement plans\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.97 Tw
(This is true, of course, of employers "engaged [solely] in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.68 Tw
(intrastate commerce," so long as Congress could reasonably) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(find that their intrastate activities \(considered in the aggre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(gate\) substantially affect interstate commerce. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Garcia v. San) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.57 Tw
(Antonio Metro. Transit Auth.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 469 U.S. 528, 537 \(1985\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.51 Tw
(accord ) Tj
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 312 U.S. at 118-119; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones & Laughlin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. at 36-38.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.72 Tw
(Appellants do not challenge Congress's finding that "em-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(ployers who do not offer health insurance to their workers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(gain an unfair economic advantage relative to those employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.23 Tw
(ers who do provide coverage" and contribute to a negative) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(feedback loop in which "uninsured workers turn to emergency) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.41 Tw
(rooms for health care which in turn increases costs for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.68 Tw
(employers and families with health insurance," making it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(more difficult for employers to insure their employees. H.R.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(Rep. No. 111-443\(II\), at 985-86 \(2010\). Nor do appellants) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(103) Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
333 0 obj
4010
endobj
331 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 332 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 104 104
336 0 obj
<<
/Length 337 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.13 Tw
0 Tc
(dispute the fact that this amounts to a substantial effect on) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.57 Tw
(interstate commerce. Instead, they attempt to distinguish the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.91 Tw
(employer mandate from the wage and overtime provisions in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.67 Tw
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and the fair labor practices in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones & Laughlin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(argue that the mandate compels "private employers [to] enter) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(into a contract with other private parties for a particular prod-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(uct." Appellants' Br. 25.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.28 Tw
(These arguments fail. Appellants cannot convincingly dis-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(tinguish ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( or ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones & Laughlin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. They repeatedly suggest) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(that regulated employers must be involved in interstate com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(merce; but, as explained above, it is well settled that employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(ers who conduct only intrastate business may be regulated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(under the Commerce Clause so long as their economic activi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(ties, considered in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(commerce. Appellants emphasize the Court's observation in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(Jones & Laughlin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that the National Labor Relations Act "does) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.68 Tw
(not compel agreements between employers and employees.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 27 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jones & Laughlin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 301 U.S. at 31\). Neither) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.5 Tw
(does the employer mandate: like the minimum wage and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(overtime provisions upheld in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, it merely requires that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(employment agreements contain certain terms \(or that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(employer pay a penalty\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.8 Tw
(Appellants attempt to distinguish ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( by arguing that) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
("the wage and hour provisions in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Darby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( . . . did not prescribe) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.9 Tw
(what must be contained within the employment contract,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.19 Tw
(other than setting a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(Appellants' Br. 28. But the employer mandate, too, only) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
("set[s] a floor": it requires employers to offer employees "the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(eligible employer-sponsored plan," but employers are free to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(select any plan \(or create their own\) and provide any level of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(coverage above the "minimum essential" level, the mandate's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
("floor." 26 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(4980H\(a\)\(1\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(Appellants' only other objection to the employer mandate) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(is that it allegedly forces employers to contract with third par-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(104) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
337 0 obj
3911
endobj
335 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 336 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 105 105
339 0 obj
<<
/Length 340 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.92 Tw
0 Tc
(ties. This is untrue: employers are free to self-insure, and) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.28 Tw
(many do. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Employee Benefit Research Inst., ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Health Plan) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.6 Tw
(Differences: Fully-Insured vs. Self-Insured) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(2009\) \(reporting) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.33 Tw
(that 55% of employees with health insurance were enrolled in) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.73 Tw
(self-insured plans in 2008\); Christina H. Park, Div. of Health) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.83 Tw
(Care Statistics at the Nat'l Ctr. for Health Statistics, Ctrs. for) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.1 Tw
(Disease Control and Prevention, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Prevalence of Employer Self-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.12 Tw
(Insured Health Benefits: National and State Variation) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 57) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.63 Tw
(Med. Care Res. & Rev. 340, 352 \(2000\) \(finding that 21% of) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
5.23 Tw
(all private-sector employers who offered health benefits) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.7 Tw
(offered a self-insured health plan in 1993; 49% of employees) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.21 Tw
(were enrolled in self-insured plans\). Even if employers were) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.8 Tw
(compelled to enter the market to purchase health insurance,) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.07 Tw
(appellants' objection would fail for the very reasons I would) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(reject their similar challenge to the individual mandate.) Tj
78.402 -25.3 Td
(VIII.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Religious Exemptions) Tj
-66.402 -25.3 Td
4.61 Tw
(Appellants also allege violations of the Free Exercise) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
1.57 Tw
(Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.95 Tw
(Establishment Clause, and equal protection. The Act makes) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
2.1 Tw
(two religious exemptions: a religious conscience exemption) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
4.24 Tw
(and a health-care sharing ministry exemption. 26 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.42 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.42 Tw
(5000A\(d\)\(2\). The former exempts members of a recognized) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.11 Tw
(religious sect in existence since December 31, 1950 who are) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.56 Tw
("conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.33 Tw
(private or public insurance which makes payments in the) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
0 Tw
(event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes pay-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.11 Tw
(ments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3.56 Tw
(care." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.56 Tw
(1402\(g\)\(1\). The latter exempts members of a) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.03 Tw
("health care sharing ministry"a non-profit organization in) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.26 Tw
(existence since December 31, 1999 with members who "share) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.27 Tw
(a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.42 Tw
(expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.7 Tw
(and without regard to the State in which a member resides or) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(is employed." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(5000A\(d\)\(2\)\(B\)\(ii\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.34 Tw
(Appellants claim that these exemptions are "religious ger-) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.75 Tw
(rymanders" demonstrating that the Act itself is hostile to cer-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(105) Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
340 0 obj
3919
endobj
338 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 339 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 106 106
342 0 obj
<<
/Length 343 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
5.53 Tw
0 Tc
(tain religions, Appellants' Br. 45, and further that the) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.45 Tw
(exemptions themselves are unconstitutional under the Estab-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.37 Tw
(lishment and Equal Protection Clauses. For the following rea-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(sons, I reject these arguments.) Tj
86.316 -24.6 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Free Exercise Clause) Tj
-74.316 -24.7 Td
.25 Tw
(Appellants allege that the Act compels them to violate their) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.13 Tw
("sincerely held religious beliefs against facilitating, subsidiz-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.24 Tw
(ing, easing, funding, or supporting abortions" and prohibits) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
5.62 Tw
(the University from "providing health care choices for) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.13 Tw
(employees that do not conflict with the mission of the Univer-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.33 Tw
(sity and the core Christian values under which it and its) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.86 Tw
(employees order their day to day lives." Second Am. Compl.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
( 142; Pls.' Opp'n 36. This argument is unavailing.) Tj
12 -24.7 Td
.97 Tw
("[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
1.78 Tw
(of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.41 Tw
(general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes \(or) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
5.18 Tw
(prescribes\) conduct that his religion prescribes \(or pro-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.51 Tw
(scribes\)." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dept. of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 U.S. 872,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.84 Tw
(879 \(1990\). Appellants claim that the Act is not neutral) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.3 Tw
(because its religious exemptions are "the type of `religious) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.95 Tw
(gerrymanders' that the Supreme Court warned against in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.4 Td
4.3 Tw
(Lukumi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." Appellants' Br. 45 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Church of Lukumi) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.83 Tw
(Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 508 U.S. 520, 534) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(\(1993\)\). They are not. In ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lukumi) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court struck) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.86 Tw
(down city ordinances after finding that "[t]he record in this) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(case compels the conclusion that the suppression of the cen-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.67 Tw
(tral element of the Santeria worship service was the object of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.23 Tw
(the ordinances." 508 U.S. at 534. Here appellants never allege) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.8 Tw
(that "the object of [the Act] [wa]s to infringe upon or restrict) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(practices because of their religious motivation." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The Act) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(is a neutral law of general applicability and so does not vio-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(late the Free Exercise Clause.) Tj
51.534 -24.7 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Religious Freedom Restoration Act) Tj
-39.534 -24.7 Td
2.77 Tw
(I also reject the claim that application of the individual) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
.85 Tw
(mandate to appellants would run afoul of the Religious Free-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(106) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
343 0 obj
3701
endobj
341 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 342 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 107 107
345 0 obj
<<
/Length 346 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.28 Tw
0 Tc
(dom Restoration Act of 1993 \(RFRA\). The RFRA directs that) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.05 Tw
(the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.24 Tw
(exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.78 Tw
(general applicability," unless the Government "demonstrates) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.24 Tw
(that application of the burden to the person \(1\) is in further-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.55 Tw
(ance of a compelling governmental interest; and \(2\) is the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.57 Tw
(least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(mental interest." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2000bb-1.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.83 Tw
(If appellants had plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(substantial burden to their exercise of religion, I would be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(forced to consider the relevance of the RFRA to a subsequent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.06 Tw
(act of Congress. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Benefi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.2 Tw
(cente Uniao do Vegetal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 546 U.S. 418 \(2006\) \(applying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(RFRA to enforcement of pre-RFRA provisions of the Con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(trolled Substances Act\). But appellants have not.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.8 Tw
(To survive the Government's 12\(b\)\(6\) motion to dismiss,) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.87 Tw
(appellants' complaint must "provide the grounds of [their]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.98 Tw
(entitlement to relief," which "requires more than labels and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(conclusions." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 550 U.S. 544,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
15.2 Tw
(555 \(2007\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
("[C]onclusory" allegations are "not entitled to be assumed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(true." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(1951 \(2009\). Unless appellants' allegations "nudge[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.06 Tw
(] their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.96 Tw
(claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(complaint must be dismissed." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Twombly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 550 U.S. at 570.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.71 Tw
(Here appellants merely alleged that the individual mandate) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.22 Tw
(will force them to violate their "sincerely held religious) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(beliefs against facilitating, subsidizing, easing, funding, or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(supporting abortions." Second Am. Compl. 142. Nowhere) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(does the complaint explain how the Act would do this. The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(Act contains provisions to ensure that federal funds are not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.79 Tw
(used for abortions \(except in cases of rape or incest, or when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(the life of the woman would be endangered\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Affordable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(Care Act ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.15 Tw
(1303; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Exec. Order No. 13,535 of Mar. 24,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.47 Tw
(2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 15,599 \(implementing Section 1303's) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(107) Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
346 0 obj
3846
endobj
344 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 345 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 108 108
348 0 obj
<<
/Length 349 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4 Tw
0 Tc
(abortion restrictions\), and that each state's health benefit) Tj
0 -13 Td
2 Tw
(exchange will include at least one plan that does not cover) Tj
0 -13 Td
11.34 Tw
(\(non-excepted\) abortions, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Affordable Care Act) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.55 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(1334\(a\)\(6\). Without additional or more particularized alle-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(gations, I cannot say that appellants' complaint makes it plau-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(sible that the Act "substantially burdens [their] exercise of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(religion." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(2000bb-1\(b\).) Tj
32.436 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Establishment Clause and Equal Protection) Tj
-20.436 -26 Td
2.45 Tw
(Appellants also challenge the Act's religious exemptions) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.93 Tw
(themselves, claiming that they violate the Establishment) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(Clause and equal protection because "they grant preferred sta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(tus only to certain religious adherents." Appellants' Br. 45. I) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(disagree. Like the "permissible legislative accommodation of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(religion" upheld by the Supreme Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cutter v. Wilkinson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.9 Tw
(the Act's exemptions alleviate "government-created burdens) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(on private religious exercise," "do[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.27 Tw
(] not override other signif-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(icant interests," and neither "confer[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.45 Tw
(] . . . privileged status on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(any particular religious sect, [nor] single[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.66 Tw
(] out [any] bona) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(fide faith for disadvantageous treatment." 544 U.S. 709, 719-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(23 \(2005\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.4 Tw
(The religious conscience exemption simply incorporates) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(the exemption created by section 1402\(g\)\(1\), which has sur-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(vived every Establishment Clause challenge to it over the last) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(forty years. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Droz v. Comm'r) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 48 F.3d 1120, 1124) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(\(9th Cir. 1995\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hatcher v. Comm'r) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 688 F.2d 82, 83-84 \(10th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(Cir. 1979\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jaggard v. Comm'r) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 582 F.2d 1189, 1190 \(8th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(1978\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Palmer v. Comm'r) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 52 T.C. 310, 314-15 \(1969\). For) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(the reasons set out by our sister courts in these cases, I would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(reject appellants' Establishment Clause challenge to the Act's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(exemptions.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.88 Tw
(The exemptions easily survive appellants' equal protection) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(challenge as well. Legislation comports with equal protection) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(requirements so long as it employs "a rational means to serve) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(a legitimate end." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(108) Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
349 0 obj
3883
endobj
347 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 334 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 348 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 109 109
351 0 obj
<<
/Length 352 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.04 Tw
0 Tc
(473 U.S. 432, 442 \(1985\). And "where individuals in the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.61 Tw
(group affected by a law have distinguishing characteristics) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4 Tw
(relevant to interests the [legislature] has the authority to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.7 Tw
(implement, the courts have been very reluctant . . . to closely) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(scrutinize legislative choices as to whether, how, and to what) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.78 Tw
(extent those interests should be pursued." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 441-42. Here) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.9 Tw
(Congress could have reasonably believed that members of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.14 Tw
(groups that provide health care to their members are less) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(likely to require public medical care, and thus less likely to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(produce the externalities the Act was designed to diminish.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
0 Tw
(And Congress could have reasonably believed that if it did not) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.03 Tw
(limit these exemptions to groups formed prior to a pre-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(enactment date, individuals who simply wished to avoid the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
6 Tw
(individual mandate would form groups that insincerely) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.18 Tw
(claimed the required religious beliefs. Thus the distinctions) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2 Tw
(Congress drew in the Act's religious exemptions accord all) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(equal protection under the law.) Tj
108.834 -26.2 Td
(IX.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Conclusion) Tj
-96.834 -26.2 Td
.97 Tw
(For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the AIA does) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3 Tw
(not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.37 Tw
(constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I would further) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.4 Tw
(hold that each of appellants' challenges to the Act lacks merit) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.91 Tw
(and that, specifically, both the individual and employer man-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(dates pass muster as legitimate exercises of Congress's com-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(merce power. ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.21 Tw
(Regrettably, my fine colleagues in the majority perceive a) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.36 Tw
(jurisdictional bar in this case that simply is not there. Accord-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(ingly, I respectfully dissent.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
439.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(109) Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(NIVERSITY) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. G) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EITHNER) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
352 0 obj
2821
endobj
350 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 353 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 351 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
354 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
355 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 354 0 R
/FontDescriptor 355 0 R
>>
endobj
356 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
357 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 356 0 R
/FontDescriptor 357 0 R
>>
endobj
358 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
359 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 358 0 R
/FontDescriptor 359 0 R
>>
endobj
360 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
361 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 360 0 R
/FontDescriptor 361 0 R
>>
endobj
362 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
363 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
52 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 362 0 R
/FontDescriptor 363 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Kids [26 0 R 30 0 R 33 0 R 36 0 R 39 0 R 42 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
48 0 obj
<<
/Kids [45 0 R 49 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<<
/Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
106 0 obj
<<
/Kids [103 0 R 107 0 R 110 0 R 113 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 364 0 R
>>
endobj
125 0 obj
<<
/Kids [122 0 R 126 0 R 129 0 R 132 0 R 135 0 R 138 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
144 0 obj
<<
/Kids [141 0 R 145 0 R 148 0 R 151 0 R 154 0 R 157 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
163 0 obj
<<
/Kids [160 0 R 164 0 R 167 0 R 170 0 R 173 0 R 176 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
182 0 obj
<<
/Kids [179 0 R 183 0 R 186 0 R 189 0 R 192 0 R 195 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
201 0 obj
<<
/Kids [198 0 R 202 0 R 205 0 R 208 0 R 211 0 R 214 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
220 0 obj
<<
/Kids [217 0 R 221 0 R 224 0 R 227 0 R 230 0 R 233 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 365 0 R
>>
endobj
239 0 obj
<<
/Kids [236 0 R 240 0 R 243 0 R 246 0 R 249 0 R 252 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
258 0 obj
<<
/Kids [255 0 R 259 0 R 262 0 R 265 0 R 268 0 R 271 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
277 0 obj
<<
/Kids [274 0 R 278 0 R 281 0 R 284 0 R 287 0 R 290 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
296 0 obj
<<
/Kids [293 0 R 297 0 R 300 0 R 303 0 R 306 0 R 309 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
315 0 obj
<<
/Kids [312 0 R 316 0 R 319 0 R 322 0 R 325 0 R 328 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
334 0 obj
<<
/Kids [331 0 R 335 0 R 338 0 R 341 0 R 344 0 R 347 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 366 0 R
>>
endobj
353 0 obj
<<
/Kids [350 0 R]
/Count 1
/Type /Pages
/Parent 367 0 R
>>
endobj
364 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 29 0 R 48 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R 106 0 R]
/Count 36
/Type /Pages
/Parent 368 0 R
>>
endobj
365 0 obj
<<
/Kids [125 0 R 144 0 R 163 0 R 182 0 R 201 0 R 220 0 R]
/Count 36
/Type /Pages
/Parent 368 0 R
>>
endobj
366 0 obj
<<
/Kids [239 0 R 258 0 R 277 0 R 296 0 R 315 0 R 334 0 R]
/Count 36
/Type /Pages
/Parent 368 0 R
>>
endobj
367 0 obj
<<
/Kids [353 0 R]
/Count 1
/Type /Pages
/Parent 368 0 R
>>
endobj
368 0 obj
<<
/Kids [364 0 R 365 0 R 366 0 R 367 0 R]
/Count 109
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 368 0 R
>>
endobj
369 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Tuesday September 13, 2011 09:23:11)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 370
0000000000 65535 f
0000481260 00000 n
0000496349 00000 n
0000004381 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000004358 00000 n
0000482727 00000 n
0000485383 00000 n
0000486941 00000 n
0000489592 00000 n
0000493472 00000 n
0000010793 00000 n
0000004595 00000 n
0000010769 00000 n
0000015366 00000 n
0000011009 00000 n
0000015342 00000 n
0000023086 00000 n
0000015571 00000 n
0000023062 00000 n
0000029523 00000 n
0000023291 00000 n
0000029499 00000 n
0000034243 00000 n
0000029728 00000 n
0000034219 00000 n
0000039036 00000 n
0000034448 00000 n
0000039012 00000 n
0000493589 00000 n
0000043404 00000 n
0000039241 00000 n
0000043380 00000 n
0000049656 00000 n
0000043609 00000 n
0000049632 00000 n
0000058309 00000 n
0000049863 00000 n
0000058285 00000 n
0000061740 00000 n
0000058527 00000 n
0000061716 00000 n
0000065462 00000 n
0000061936 00000 n
0000065438 00000 n
0000069225 00000 n
0000065658 00000 n
0000069201 00000 n
0000493707 00000 n
0000072803 00000 n
0000069421 00000 n
0000072779 00000 n
0000492247 00000 n
0000077084 00000 n
0000073022 00000 n
0000077060 00000 n
0000081092 00000 n
0000077291 00000 n
0000081068 00000 n
0000084697 00000 n
0000081299 00000 n
0000084673 00000 n
0000088471 00000 n
0000084904 00000 n
0000088447 00000 n
0000092328 00000 n
0000088667 00000 n
0000092304 00000 n
0000493825 00000 n
0000096533 00000 n
0000092535 00000 n
0000096509 00000 n
0000100542 00000 n
0000096752 00000 n
0000100518 00000 n
0000105010 00000 n
0000100749 00000 n
0000104986 00000 n
0000109607 00000 n
0000105217 00000 n
0000109583 00000 n
0000114314 00000 n
0000109826 00000 n
0000114290 00000 n
0000119532 00000 n
0000114533 00000 n
0000119508 00000 n
0000493943 00000 n
0000124197 00000 n
0000119751 00000 n
0000124173 00000 n
0000128528 00000 n
0000124416 00000 n
0000128504 00000 n
0000133488 00000 n
0000128747 00000 n
0000133464 00000 n
0000138353 00000 n
0000133707 00000 n
0000138329 00000 n
0000142400 00000 n
0000138560 00000 n
0000142375 00000 n
0000147000 00000 n
0000142609 00000 n
0000146975 00000 n
0000494062 00000 n
0000151226 00000 n
0000147222 00000 n
0000151201 00000 n
0000156511 00000 n
0000151448 00000 n
0000156486 00000 n
0000160746 00000 n
0000156733 00000 n
0000160721 00000 n
0000164932 00000 n
0000160968 00000 n
0000164907 00000 n
0000169117 00000 n
0000165142 00000 n
0000169092 00000 n
0000174354 00000 n
0000169339 00000 n
0000174329 00000 n
0000494187 00000 n
0000178531 00000 n
0000174576 00000 n
0000178506 00000 n
0000183120 00000 n
0000178741 00000 n
0000183095 00000 n
0000187435 00000 n
0000183342 00000 n
0000187410 00000 n
0000192020 00000 n
0000187657 00000 n
0000191995 00000 n
0000196303 00000 n
0000192230 00000 n
0000196278 00000 n
0000200799 00000 n
0000196525 00000 n
0000200774 00000 n
0000494312 00000 n
0000205031 00000 n
0000201009 00000 n
0000205006 00000 n
0000209130 00000 n
0000205253 00000 n
0000209105 00000 n
0000213692 00000 n
0000209352 00000 n
0000213667 00000 n
0000218330 00000 n
0000213914 00000 n
0000218305 00000 n
0000222288 00000 n
0000218540 00000 n
0000222263 00000 n
0000226209 00000 n
0000222498 00000 n
0000226184 00000 n
0000494437 00000 n
0000230782 00000 n
0000226419 00000 n
0000230757 00000 n
0000235671 00000 n
0000231004 00000 n
0000235646 00000 n
0000239832 00000 n
0000235893 00000 n
0000239807 00000 n
0000244141 00000 n
0000240042 00000 n
0000244116 00000 n
0000248536 00000 n
0000244363 00000 n
0000248511 00000 n
0000252660 00000 n
0000248746 00000 n
0000252635 00000 n
0000494562 00000 n
0000256707 00000 n
0000252870 00000 n
0000256682 00000 n
0000260331 00000 n
0000256917 00000 n
0000260306 00000 n
0000264590 00000 n
0000260541 00000 n
0000264565 00000 n
0000269614 00000 n
0000264812 00000 n
0000269589 00000 n
0000273845 00000 n
0000269836 00000 n
0000273820 00000 n
0000277823 00000 n
0000274055 00000 n
0000277798 00000 n
0000494687 00000 n
0000281995 00000 n
0000278033 00000 n
0000281970 00000 n
0000285899 00000 n
0000282205 00000 n
0000285874 00000 n
0000290283 00000 n
0000286109 00000 n
0000290258 00000 n
0000294165 00000 n
0000290493 00000 n
0000294140 00000 n
0000298788 00000 n
0000294375 00000 n
0000298763 00000 n
0000303880 00000 n
0000298998 00000 n
0000303855 00000 n
0000494812 00000 n
0000309156 00000 n
0000304102 00000 n
0000309131 00000 n
0000313624 00000 n
0000309378 00000 n
0000313599 00000 n
0000317947 00000 n
0000313846 00000 n
0000317922 00000 n
0000322692 00000 n
0000318169 00000 n
0000322667 00000 n
0000326771 00000 n
0000322902 00000 n
0000326746 00000 n
0000331319 00000 n
0000326981 00000 n
0000331294 00000 n
0000494937 00000 n
0000335231 00000 n
0000331541 00000 n
0000335206 00000 n
0000339346 00000 n
0000335441 00000 n
0000339321 00000 n
0000343865 00000 n
0000339568 00000 n
0000343840 00000 n
0000348188 00000 n
0000344087 00000 n
0000348163 00000 n
0000352116 00000 n
0000348398 00000 n
0000352091 00000 n
0000356440 00000 n
0000352338 00000 n
0000356415 00000 n
0000495062 00000 n
0000360068 00000 n
0000356662 00000 n
0000360043 00000 n
0000364180 00000 n
0000360278 00000 n
0000364155 00000 n
0000368529 00000 n
0000364390 00000 n
0000368504 00000 n
0000373087 00000 n
0000368739 00000 n
0000373062 00000 n
0000377325 00000 n
0000373297 00000 n
0000377300 00000 n
0000381527 00000 n
0000377535 00000 n
0000381502 00000 n
0000495187 00000 n
0000385704 00000 n
0000381737 00000 n
0000385679 00000 n
0000390348 00000 n
0000385914 00000 n
0000390323 00000 n
0000394520 00000 n
0000390558 00000 n
0000394495 00000 n
0000398495 00000 n
0000394730 00000 n
0000398470 00000 n
0000402633 00000 n
0000398705 00000 n
0000402608 00000 n
0000406482 00000 n
0000402843 00000 n
0000406457 00000 n
0000495312 00000 n
0000410879 00000 n
0000406692 00000 n
0000410854 00000 n
0000416250 00000 n
0000411089 00000 n
0000416225 00000 n
0000420297 00000 n
0000416472 00000 n
0000420272 00000 n
0000424474 00000 n
0000420519 00000 n
0000424449 00000 n
0000428782 00000 n
0000424696 00000 n
0000428757 00000 n
0000432575 00000 n
0000428992 00000 n
0000432550 00000 n
0000495437 00000 n
0000436453 00000 n
0000432785 00000 n
0000436428 00000 n
0000440545 00000 n
0000436663 00000 n
0000440520 00000 n
0000444594 00000 n
0000440757 00000 n
0000444569 00000 n
0000448823 00000 n
0000444818 00000 n
0000448798 00000 n
0000452886 00000 n
0000449047 00000 n
0000452861 00000 n
0000457196 00000 n
0000453098 00000 n
0000457171 00000 n
0000495562 00000 n
0000461407 00000 n
0000457408 00000 n
0000461382 00000 n
0000465626 00000 n
0000461619 00000 n
0000465601 00000 n
0000469627 00000 n
0000465838 00000 n
0000469602 00000 n
0000473773 00000 n
0000469839 00000 n
0000473748 00000 n
0000477956 00000 n
0000473985 00000 n
0000477931 00000 n
0000481077 00000 n
0000478168 00000 n
0000481052 00000 n
0000495687 00000 n
0000481293 00000 n
0000482446 00000 n
0000483949 00000 n
0000485102 00000 n
0000486601 00000 n
0000486674 00000 n
0000488155 00000 n
0000489308 00000 n
0000490809 00000 n
0000491962 00000 n
0000495772 00000 n
0000495893 00000 n
0000496019 00000 n
0000496145 00000 n
0000496230 00000 n
0000496406 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 370
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 369 0 R
>>
startxref
496544
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>/OCGs[493 0 R]>>/Pages 368 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
11 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
14 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
26 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
33 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
36 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
39 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
45 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
52 0 obj
<>
endobj
53 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
56 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
59 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
62 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
65 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
72 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
75 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
78 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
81 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
84 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
91 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
94 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
97 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
100 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
103 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
110 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
113 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
116 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
119 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
122 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
126 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
129 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
132 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
135 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
138 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
141 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
145 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
148 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
151 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
154 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
157 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
160 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
164 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
167 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
170 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
173 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
176 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
179 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
183 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
186 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
189 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
192 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
195 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
198 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
202 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
205 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
208 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
211 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
214 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
217 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
221 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
224 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
227 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
230 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
233 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
236 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
240 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
243 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
246 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
249 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
252 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
255 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
259 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
262 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
265 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
268 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
271 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
274 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
278 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
281 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
284 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
287 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
290 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
293 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
297 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
300 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
303 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
306 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
309 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
312 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
316 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
319 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
322 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
325 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
328 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
331 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
335 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
338 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
341 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
344 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
347 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
350 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
369 0 obj
<>
endobj
371 0 obj
<>
endobj
372 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 495 0 R>>
endobj
373 0 obj
<>stream
Tuesday September 13, 2011 09:23:11
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2012-12-03T12:04:38-05:00
2012-12-03T12:04:38-05:00
application/pdf
uuid:e6524a98-2932-49eb-ab54-4841feb50457
uuid:2b177a98-ee53-4ece-a36f-61166bae1f63
endstream
endobj
374 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.04 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(473 U.S. 432, 442 \(1985\). And "where individuals in the)Tj
2.61 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(group affected by a law have distinguishing characteristics)Tj
4 Tw T*
(relevant to interests the [legislature] has the authority to)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(implement, the courts have been very reluctant . . . to closely)Tj
T*
(scrutinize legislative choices as to whether, how, and to what)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(extent those interests should be pursued." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
206.556 -74.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 441-42. Here)Tj
2.9 Tw -206.556 -13.2 Td
(Congress could have reasonably believed that members of)Tj
3.14 Tw T*
(groups that provide health care to their members are less)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(likely to require public medical care, and thus less likely to)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(produce the externalities the Act was designed to diminish.)Tj
0 Tw T*
(And Congress could have reasonably believed that if it did not)Tj
4.03 Tw T*
(limit these exemptions to groups formed prior to a pre-)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(enactment date, individuals who simply wished to avoid the)Tj
6 Tw T*
(individual mandate would form groups that insincerely)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(claimed the required religious beliefs. Thus the distinctions)Tj
2 Tw T*
(Congress drew in the Act's religious exemptions accord all)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(equal protection under the law.)Tj
108.834 -26.2 Td
(IX.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Conclusion)Tj
0.97 Tw -96.834 -26.2 Td
(For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that the AIA does)Tj
3 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate the)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I would further)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(hold that each of appellants' challenges to the Act lacks merit)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(and that, specifically, both the individual and employer man-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(dates pass muster as legitimate exercises of Congress's com-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(merce power. )Tj
1.21 Tw 12 -26.2 Td
(Regrettably, my fine colleagues in the majority perceive a)Tj
0.36 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(jurisdictional bar in this case that simply is not there. Accord-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ingly, I respectfully dissent.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 283.5 415.8 Td
(109)Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
375 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(abortion restrictions\), and that each state's health benefit)Tj
2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(exchange will include at least one plan that does not cover)Tj
11.34 Tw T*
(\(non-excepted\) abortions, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
148.98 -34.4 Td
(see)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Affordable Care Act)Tj
1.55 Tw -148.98 -13 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.55 Tw (1334\(a\)\(6\). Without additional or more particularized alle-)Tj
0.3 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(gations, I cannot say that appellants' complaint makes it plau-)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(sible that the Act "substantially burdens [their] exercise of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(religion." 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (2000bb-1\(b\).)Tj
32.436 -26 Td
(C.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Establishment Clause and Equal Protection)Tj
2.45 Tw -20.436 -26 Td
(Appellants also challenge the Act's religious exemptions)Tj
4.93 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(themselves, claiming that they violate the Establishment)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(Clause and equal protection because "they grant preferred sta-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(tus only to certain religious adherents." Appellants' Br. 45. I)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(disagree. Like the "permissible legislative accommodation of)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(religion" upheld by the Supreme Court in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cutter v. Wilkinson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(the Act's exemptions alleviate "government-created burdens)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(on private religious exercise," "do[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.27 Tw (] not override other signif-)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(icant interests," and neither "confer[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.45 Tw (] . . . privileged status on)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(any particular religious sect, [nor] single[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.66 Tw (] out [any] bona)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(fide faith for disadvantageous treatment." 544 U.S. 709, 719-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(23 \(2005\).)Tj
3.4 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The religious conscience exemption simply incorporates)Tj
1.37 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(the exemption created by section 1402\(g\)\(1\), which has sur-)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(vived every Establishment Clause challenge to it over the last)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(forty years. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Droz v. Comm'r)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 48 F.3d 1120, 1124)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(\(9th Cir. 1995\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Hatcher v. Comm'r)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 688 F.2d 82, 83-84 \(10th)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(Cir. 1979\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Jaggard v. Comm'r)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 582 F.2d 1189, 1190 \(8th Cir.)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(1978\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Palmer v. Comm'r)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 52 T.C. 310, 314-15 \(1969\). For)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(the reasons set out by our sister courts in these cases, I would)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(reject appellants' Establishment Clause challenge to the Act's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(exemptions.)Tj
0.88 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The exemptions easily survive appellants' equal protection)Tj
0.67 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(challenge as well. Legislation comports with equal protection)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(requirements so long as it employs "a rational means to serve)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(a legitimate end." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(108)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
376 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.28 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(dom Restoration Act of 1993 \(RFRA\). The RFRA directs that)Tj
3.05 Tw 0 -13 TD
(the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of)Tj
1.78 Tw T*
(general applicability," unless the Government "demonstrates)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(that application of the burden to the person \(1\) is in further-)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(ance of a compelling governmental interest; and \(2\) is the)Tj
1.57 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(least restrictive means of furthering that compelling govern-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(mental interest." 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
143.028 -99.6 Td
( )Tj
1.2 Tw (2000bb-1.)Tj
2.83 Tw -131.028 -26 Td
(If appellants had plead sufficient facts to demonstrate a)Tj
2.44 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(substantial burden to their exercise of religion, I would be)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(forced to consider the relevance of the RFRA to a subsequent)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(act of Congress. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Benefi-)Tj
4.2 Tw T*
(cente Uniao do Vegetal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 546 U.S. 418 \(2006\) \(applying)Tj
2 Tw T*
(RFRA to enforcement of pre-RFRA provisions of the Con-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(trolled Substances Act\). But appellants have not.)Tj
1.8 Tw 12 -26 Td
(To survive the Government's 12\(b\)\(6\) motion to dismiss,)Tj
2.87 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(appellants' complaint must "provide the grounds of [their])Tj
1.98 Tw T*
(entitlement to relief," which "requires more than labels and)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(conclusions." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 550 U.S. 544,)Tj
15.2 Tw T*
(555 \(2007\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\).)Tj
3 Tw T*
("[C]onclusory" allegations are "not entitled to be assumed)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(true." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937,)Tj
3.06 Tw T*
(1951 \(2009\). Unless appellants' allegations "nudge[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.06 Tw (] their)Tj
2.96 Tw T*
(claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(complaint must be dismissed." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Twombly)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 550 U.S. at 570.)Tj
0.71 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Here appellants merely alleged that the individual mandate)Tj
4.22 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(will force them to violate their "sincerely held religious)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(beliefs against facilitating, subsidizing, easing, funding, or)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(supporting abortions." Second Am. Compl. \266 142. Nowhere)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(does the complaint explain how the Act would do this. The)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(Act contains provisions to ensure that federal funds are not)Tj
0.79 Tw T*
(used for abortions \(except in cases of rape or incest, or when)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(the life of the woman would be endangered\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Affordable)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(Care Act \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.15 Tw (1303; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Exec. Order No. 13,535 of Mar. 24,)Tj
3.47 Tw T*
(2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 15,599 \(implementing Section 1303's)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 283.5 504 Td
(107)Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
377 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
5.53 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(tain religions, Appellants' Br. 45, and further that the)Tj
1.45 Tw 0 -12.4 TD
(exemptions themselves are unconstitutional under the Estab-)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(lishment and Equal Protection Clauses. For the following rea-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(sons, I reject these arguments.)Tj
86.316 -24.6 Td
(A.)Tj
9 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
97.98 -70.2 Td
( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Free Exercise Clause)Tj
0.25 Tw -85.98 -24.7 Td
(Appellants allege that the Act compels them to violate their)Tj
1.13 Tw -12 -12.4 Td
("sincerely held religious beliefs against facilitating, subsidiz-)Tj
2.24 Tw T*
(ing, easing, funding, or supporting abortions" and prohibits)Tj
5.62 Tw T*
(the University from "providing health care choices for)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(employees that do not conflict with the mission of the Univer-)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(sity and the core Christian values under which it and its)Tj
0.86 Tw T*
(employees order their day to day lives." Second Am. Compl.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(\266 142; Pls.' Opp'n 36. This argument is unavailing.)Tj
0.97 Tw 12 -24.7 Td
("[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an individual)Tj
1.78 Tw -12 -12.4 Td
(of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes \(or)Tj
5.18 Tw T*
(prescribes\) conduct that his religion prescribes \(or pro-)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(scribes\)." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Dept. of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 494 U.S. 872,)Tj
3.84 Tw T*
(879 \(1990\). Appellants claim that the Act is not neutral)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(because its religious exemptions are "the type of `religious)Tj
3.95 Tw T*
(gerrymanders' that the Supreme Court warned against in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
4.3 Tw T*
(Lukumi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(." Appellants' Br. 45 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Church of Lukumi)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 508 U.S. 520, 534)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(\(1993\)\). They are not. In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lukumi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Supreme Court struck)Tj
1.86 Tw T*
(down city ordinances after finding that "[t]he record in this)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(case compels the conclusion that the suppression of the cen-)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(tral element of the Santeria worship service was the object of)Tj
0.23 Tw 0 -12.5 TD
(the ordinances." 508 U.S. at 534. Here appellants never allege)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(that "the object of [the Act] [wa]s to infringe upon or restrict)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(practices because of their religious motivation." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( The Act)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(is a neutral law of general applicability and so does not vio-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(late the Free Exercise Clause.)Tj
51.534 -24.7 Td
(B.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)Tj
2.77 Tw -39.534 -24.7 Td
(I also reject the claim that application of the individual)Tj
0.85 Tw -12 -12.5 Td
(mandate to appellants would run afoul of the Religious Free-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(106)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
378 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.92 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ties. This is untrue: employers are free to self-insure, and)Tj
1.28 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(many do. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
50.224 -21.1 Td
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Employee Benefit Research Inst., )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Health Plan)Tj
1.6 Tw -50.224 -12.7 Td
(Differences: Fully-Insured vs. Self-Insured)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(2009\) \(reporting)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(that 55% of employees with health insurance were enrolled in)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(self-insured plans in 2008\); Christina H. Park, Div. of Health)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(Care Statistics at the Nat'l Ctr. for Health Statistics, Ctrs. for)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(Disease Control and Prevention, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Prevalence of Employer Self-)Tj
3.12 Tw T*
(Insured Health Benefits: National and State Variation)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 57)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(Med. Care Res. & Rev. 340, 352 \(2000\) \(finding that 21% of)Tj
5.23 Tw T*
(all private-sector employers who offered health benefits)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(offered a self-insured health plan in 1993; 49% of employees)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(were enrolled in self-insured plans\). Even if employers were)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(compelled to enter the market to purchase health insurance,)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(appellants' objection would fail for the very reasons I would)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(reject their similar challenge to the individual mandate.)Tj
78.402 -25.3 Td
(VIII.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Religious Exemptions)Tj
4.61 Tw -66.402 -25.3 Td
(Appellants also allege violations of the Free Exercise)Tj
1.57 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(Establishment Clause, and equal protection. The Act makes)Tj
2.1 Tw T*
(two religious exemptions: a religious conscience exemption)Tj
4.24 Tw T*
(and a health-care sharing ministry exemption. 26 U.S.C.)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.42 Tw (5000A\(d\)\(2\). The former exempts members of a recognized)Tj
1.11 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(religious sect in existence since December 31, 1950 who are)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
("conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(private or public insurance which makes payments in the)Tj
0 Tw T*
(event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes pay-)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(ments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical)Tj
3.56 Tw T*
(care." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.56 Tw (1402\(g\)\(1\). The latter exempts members of a)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
("health care sharing ministry"\320a non-profit organization in)Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(existence since December 31, 1999 with members who "share)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(and without regard to the State in which a member resides or)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(is employed." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(d\)\(2\)\(B\)\(ii\).)Tj
1.34 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Appellants claim that these exemptions are "religious ger-)Tj
0.75 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(rymanders" demonstrating that the Act itself is hostile to cer-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 283.5 504 Td
(105)Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
379 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.13 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(dispute the fact that this amounts to a substantial effect on)Tj
1.57 Tw 0 -13 TD
(interstate commerce. Instead, they attempt to distinguish the)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(employer mandate from the wage and overtime provisions in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.67 Tw T*
(Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
30.66 -47.4 Td
( and the fair labor practices in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Jones & Laughlin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and)Tj
0.81 Tw -30.66 -13 Td
(argue that the mandate compels "private employers [to] enter)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(into a contract with other private parties for a particular prod-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(uct." Appellants' Br. 25.)Tj
1.28 Tw 12 -26 Td
(These arguments fail. Appellants cannot convincingly dis-)Tj
0.37 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(tinguish )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( or )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Jones & Laughlin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. They repeatedly suggest)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(that regulated employers must be involved in interstate com-)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(merce; but, as explained above, it is well settled that employ-)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(ers who conduct only intrastate business may be regulated)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(under the Commerce Clause so long as their economic activi-)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(ties, considered in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(commerce. Appellants emphasize the Court's observation in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.07 Tw T*
(Jones & Laughlin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( that the National Labor Relations Act "does)Tj
1.68 Tw T*
(not compel agreements between employers and employees.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.6 Tw T*
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 27 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Jones & Laughlin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 301 U.S. at 31\). Neither)Tj
3.5 Tw T*
(does the employer mandate: like the minimum wage and)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(overtime provisions upheld in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, it merely requires that)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(employment agreements contain certain terms \(or that the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(employer pay a penalty\).)Tj
2.8 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Appellants attempt to distinguish )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( by arguing that)Tj
0.5 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
("the wage and hour provisions in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( . . . did not prescribe)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(what must be contained within the employment contract,)Tj
1.19 Tw T*
(other than setting a floor for wages and a ceiling for hours.")Tj
3.66 Tw T*
(Appellants' Br. 28. But the employer mandate, too, only)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
("set[s] a floor": it requires employers to offer employees "the)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(eligible employer-sponsored plan," but employers are free to)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(select any plan \(or create their own\) and provide any level of)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(coverage above the "minimum essential" level, the mandate's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("floor." 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (4980H\(a\)\(1\).)Tj
1.47 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Appellants' only other objection to the employer mandate)Tj
0.27 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(is that it allegedly forces employers to contract with third par-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(104)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
380 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(to be within the bounds of Congress's commerce power)Tj
2.75 Tw 0 -13 TD
(defined by )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
59.488 -21.4 Td
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, I would)Tj
1.2 Tw -59.488 -13 Td
(reject appellants' Commerce Clause challenge.)Tj
87.414 -26 Td
(VII.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Employer Mandate)Tj
6.11 Tw -75.414 -26 Td
(Appellants also challenge the Affordable Care Act's)Tj
1.03 Tw -12 -13 Td
(employer mandate, arguing that it is not a proper exercise of)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. I disagree.)Tj
3.88 Tw 12 -26 Td
(It is well settled that Congress may regulate terms of)Tj
1.52 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(employment under the Commerce Clause. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(v. Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 312 U.S. 100 \(1941\) \(upholding minimum wage)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act\);)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.1 Tw T*
(NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 301 U.S. 1 \(1937\))Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(\(upholding National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which for-)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(bid unfair labor practices\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cf.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Employee Retirement Income)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.33 Tw (1001 )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(et seq.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(regulating)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(employer retirement plans and preempting state regulations)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(under the Commerce Clause\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.3 Tw (1082 )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(et seq.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(setting)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(minimum funding standards for employer retirement plans\).)Tj
2.97 Tw T*
(This is true, of course, of employers "engaged [solely] in)Tj
1.68 Tw T*
(intrastate commerce," so long as Congress could reasonably)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(find that their intrastate activities \(considered in the aggre-)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(gate\) substantially affect interstate commerce. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Garcia v. San)Tj
3.57 Tw T*
(Antonio Metro. Transit Auth.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 469 U.S. 528, 537 \(1985\);)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.51 Tw T*
(accord Darby)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 312 U.S. at 118-119; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Jones & Laughlin)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 301)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(U.S. at 36-38.)Tj
1.72 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Appellants do not challenge Congress's finding that "em-)Tj
2.33 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ployers who do not offer health insurance to their workers)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(gain an unfair economic advantage relative to those employ-)Tj
2.23 Tw T*
(ers who do provide coverage" and contribute to a negative)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(feedback loop in which "uninsured workers turn to emergency)Tj
4.41 Tw T*
(rooms for health care which in turn increases costs for)Tj
3.68 Tw T*
(employers and families with health insurance," making it)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(more difficult for employers to insure their employees. H.R.)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(Rep. No. 111-443\(II\), at 985-86 \(2010\). Nor do appellants)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 283.5 504 Td
(103)Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
381 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.3 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(authorize it. But I note that mandating the purchase \(but )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
284.632 -8.4 Td
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.5 Tw -284.632 -13.9 Td
(the consumption, which would raise serious constitutional)Tj
3 Tw 0 -13.9 TD
(issues\) of broccoli in order to bolster the broccoli market)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(would, in practical effect, be nothing new. Since the time of)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(the Founding Fathers, when Alexander Hamilton called for)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(federal subsidies for domestic manufacturers, the federal gov-)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(ernment has used tax revenues to subsidize various industries.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.75 Tw 0 -13.8 TD
(See Algonquin SNG, Inc. v. Federal Energy Administration)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(518 F.2d 1051, 1061 \(D.C. Cir. 1975\) \("From earliest days,)Tj
2.57 Tw T*
(the tariff authority given Congress by the Constitution has)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(been understood to apply to the `protective tariff' sponsored)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(by Alexander Hamilton, a measure focused . . . on the `non-)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(revenue purpose' of protecting domestic industry against for-)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(eign competition."\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(rev'd by Federal Energy Administration)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(v. Algonquin SNG, Inc.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 426 U.S. 548 \(1976\). Though central-)Tj
3.92 Tw T*
(ized subsidies are far more efficient than purchase man-)Tj
8.61 Tw T*
(dates\320which is why a broccoli mandate is purely)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(fantastical\320they are, in effect, the same. Since they, too, are)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(clearly within Congress's power under the Taxing and Spend-)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(ing Clause, allowing broccoli purchase mandates would not)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(increase federal power. For these reasons, I find appellants')Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(fears to be unfounded. I would reject their novel and unsup-)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(ported suggestion that Commerce Clause jurisprudence ought)Tj
3.57 Tw T*
(to discriminate among regulated persons according to the)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(amount of effort or resources they have expended in a given)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(economic arena. Under seventy years of well-settled law, it is)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(enough that the behavior regulated \(whether characterized as)Tj
4.21 Tw T*
(activity or inactivity\) substantially affects interstate com-)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(merce. Appellants can cite neither case nor constitutional text)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(for their proposed activity/inactivity distinction. They can)Tj
1 Tw T*
(explain neither why it ought to be relevant to my Commerce)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(Clause analysis nor why it ought to impel courts to ignore)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(seventy-year-old law that takes a wholly different approach.)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(And they cannot even provide a sufficiently concrete defini-)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(tion of "activity" and "inactivity" to allow courts to reliably)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(apply their distinction. Because I find the individual mandate)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(102)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
382 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
5.6 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(individuals refuse to purchase them themselves, hoping)Tj
1.77 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(instead that they can free-ride when someone else does. By)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(forcibly collecting tax revenue and using it to purchase public)Tj
2.46 Tw T*
(goods, governments are able to solve this collective action)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(problem. Thus, at root, governments are formed precisely to)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(compel purchases of public goods)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
168.12 -73.9 Td
(.)Tj
2.18 Tw -156.12 -26.1 Td
(Because hospitals are required to stabilize the uninsured,)Tj
0.66 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(the uninsured are able to pass along much of the cost of their)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(health care to the insured.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (14)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Solving this problem, as the Act)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(attempts to do, creates a public good: lower prices for health)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(services for all citizens. Thus, the Act compels the purchase)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(of a public good, just as the federal government does when it)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(collects taxes and uses it to fund national defense.)Tj
1.17 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(Indeed, it is undisputed that Congress would have had the)Tj
1.66 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(power under the Taxing and Spending Clause to raise taxes)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(and use increased revenues to purchase and distribute health)Tj
T*
(insurance for all. It seems quite odd that Congress's attempt)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(to enhance individual freedom by allowing citizens to make)Tj
0.92 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(their own purchase decisions would give rise to such bloated)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(concerns about a federal power grab. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf. Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *31 \(Sutton, J.\) \("Few doubt that)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(Congress could pass an equally coercive law under its taxing)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(power . . . ."\).)Tj
5.62 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(As for the broccoli mandate appellants fear, I have)Tj
0.7 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(explained at several points why nothing I have written would)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0.88 Tw 0 -26 TD
(lic Expenditure)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 36 Rev. Econ. & Statistics 387 \(1954\). Public goods are)Tj
1.21 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(goods that are "non-rival" and "non-excludable." "Non-rival" means that)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(enjoyment of the good by one citizen does not reduce the enjoyment by)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(another; "non-excludable" means that all citizens will enjoy the good on\
ce)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(it is produced\320none can be excluded. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See, e.g.,)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( John P. Conley & Chris-)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(topher S. Yoo, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Nonrivalry and Price Discrimination in Copyright Eco-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(nomics)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1801, 1805-11 \(2009\). )Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.08 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14 Td
(14)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (In the language of economics, the failure to obtain insurance has "neg-)Tj
0.13 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(ative externalities"\320negative effects on those not responsible for th\
e deci-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(sion. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -374.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 439.5 655.5 Td
(101)Tj
-206.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
383 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.51 Tw 178 635.1 Td
(. . . And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness,)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(of the plan of regulation we have nothing to do.)Tj
0.14 Tw -22 -26.1 Td
(317 U.S. at 129 \(emphasis added\). When describing how non-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(commercial wheat production decreased demand for market)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(wheat, the Court explained that it "forestall[ed] resort to the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(market" and "supplies a need of the man who grew it which)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open mar-)Tj
2.77 Tw T*
(ket." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
28.33 -113.1 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 127, 128. Though )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( did not involve an)Tj
0.66 Tw -28.33 -13.1 Td
(express purchase mandate, the Court understood that Mr. Fil-)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(burn was effectively being "forc[ed] . . . into the market to)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(buy" wheat when it rejected his Commerce Clause challenge.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 129.)Tj
5.346 -26.1 Td
(C.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Compelled Purchases as Government's Core Function)Tj
8.67 Tw 6.654 -26.1 Td
(Finally, I pause to consider why purchase man-)Tj
5.1 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(dates\320whether they be for health insurance or brocco-)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(li\320occasion such fear of federal aggrandizement. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf. Thomas)Tj
0.9 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *32 \(conveying author's)Tj
6.01 Tw T*
("lingering intuition\320shared by most Americans, I sus-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(pect\320that Congress should not be able to compel citizens to)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(buy productions they do not want"\) \(Sutton, J\). Compelled)Tj
1.67 Tw T*
(purchases are the most fundamental function of government)Tj
0.79 Tw T*
(of any sort, and the fact that the government here allowed its)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(residents additional freedom of choice over these purchases)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(should diminish, not exacerbate, anxieties about federal tyr-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(anny. )Tj
0.43 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(Governments exist, most fundamentally, to solve collective)Tj
0.42 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(action problems. Core governmental functions, like the provi-)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(sion of domestic peace, enforceable property rights, national)Tj
5.78 Tw T*
(defense, and infrastructure, are assigned to government)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(because the market fails to produce optimal levels of such)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(public goods.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (13)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Since public goods are enjoyed by all, most)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.44 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(13)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0 Ts (See generally)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( R.H. Coase, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(The Lighthouse in Economics)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 17 J.L. &)Tj
0.48 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(Econ. 357, 357-360 \(1974\); Paul A. Samuelson, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(The Pure Theory of Pub-)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -466.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(100)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
384 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 214.872 635.1 Td
(B.)Tj
9 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
69.876 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
1.2 Tw (History of Compelled Purchases)Tj
0.42 Tw -57.876 -26.7 Td
(Even if the individual mandate were properly characterized)Tj
0.17 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(as compelling residents to enter the market, this has long been)Tj
0.21 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(an acceptable form of regulation under the Commerce Clause.)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(For instance, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-)Tj
4.25 Tw T*
(tion, acting pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980,)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(requires that motor carriers purchase either liability insurance)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(or a surety bond in order to ensure that they are able to pay)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(for damage they may cause. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 49 C.F.R. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.2 Tw (387. And the)Tj
0.65 Tw T*
(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(Liability Act of 1980 \(CERCLA\) requires that the owner of)Tj
3.75 Tw T*
(property contaminated by a hazardous substance "provide)Tj
2.68 Tw T*
(removal or remedial action"\320likely requiring resort to the)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(market\320on pain of liability for punitive damages, even where)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(the owner bears "no[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.85 Tw (] culpability or responsibility for the)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(contamination" and indeed is entirely "passiv[e]." 42 U.S.C.)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.33 Tw (9607\(c\)\(3\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(966 F.2d 837, 846-47 \(4th Cir. 1992\). CERCLA has survived)Tj
0.88 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(all Commerce Clause challenges, and it was expressly held a)Tj
0 Tw T*
(proper exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power by the)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(Second Circuit Court of Appeals. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Freier v. Westinghouse)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(Elec. Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 303 F.3d 176, 203 \(2d Cir. 2002\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(538 U.S. 998 \(2003\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cf. United States v. Olin Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 107 F.3d)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(1506, 1511 \(11th Cir. 1997\) \(holding CERCLA constitutional)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause legislation as applied to appellants\).)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.75 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( itself suggests that compelled purchases are per-)Tj
1.2 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(missible. The Court explained:)Tj
0.58 Tw 22 -26.6 Td
(It is said, however, that this Act, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(forcing some farm-)Tj
1.51 Tw T*
(ers into the market to buy)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( what they could provide)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(essence of regulating that it lays a restraining hand)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(on the selfinterest of the regulated and that advan-)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(tages from the regulation commonly fall to others.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 267 504 Td
(99)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
385 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.03 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(317 U.S. at 124 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
126.818 -8.4 Td
(United States v. Wrightwood Dairy)Tj
2.41 Tw -126.818 -13.9 Td
(Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 315 U.S. 110, 119 \(1942\)\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cf. Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. at 29)Tj
1.41 Tw 0 -13.9 TD
(\("[S]tate action cannot circumscribe Congress' plenary com-)Tj
3.44 Tw T*
(merce power."\). The Necessary and Proper Clause makes)Tj
2.7 Tw T*
(clear that we are to defer to Congress with respect to the)Tj
2 Tw T*
(means it employs to effectuate legitimate ends. U.S. Const.)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.83 Tw (8, cl. 18. In combination with the Commerce Clause,)Tj
2.97 Tw T*
(it empowers Congress "`to take all measures necessary or)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(appropriate to' the effective regulation of the interstate mar-)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(ket." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. at 38 \(Scalia, J., concurring\) \(quoting)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(Shreveport Rate Cases)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 234 U.S. 342, 353 \(1914\)\).)Tj
0.09 Tw 12 -27.5 Td
(But even if it were appropriate to review the method of reg-)Tj
0.83 Tw -12 -13.9 Td
(ulation Congress has chosen to employ, I would find that the)Tj
2.25 Tw 0 -13.8 TD
(individual mandate fits well within the range of acceptable)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(commercial regulations.)Tj
27.81 -27.4 Td
(A.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (The Act Does Not Compel Citizens to Enter)Tj
95.862 -13.8 Td
(Commerce)Tj
0.3 Tw -111.672 -27.4 Td
(I first note that the Act does not "force" any citizen to enter)Tj
2 Tw -12 -13.8 Td
(commerce. Appellants' Br. 1. Instead, residents are given a)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(choice between obtaining health insurance \(by market pur-)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(chase or otherwise\) and paying a non-punitive tax penalty)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(that, by law, is capped at "the national average premium for)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage.")Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.78 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(1\)\(B\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.78 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(1\). As the)Tj
4.21 Tw T*
(average cost of providing the most basic insurance, this)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(amount should roughly approximate the expected costs to the)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(regulatory scheme \(in the form of higher premiums\) occa-)Tj
5.81 Tw T*
(sioned by an individual's failure to procure insurance.)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(Because the uninsured effectively force the rest of the nation)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(to insure them with respect to basic, stabilizing care, this pen-)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(alty is something like a premium paid into the federal govern-)Tj
2.24 Tw T*
(ment, which bears a large share of the shifted costs as the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(largest insurer in the nation.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(98)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
386 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.1 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Fourteenth Amendment as well as the federal government)Tj
0.53 Tw 0 -13 TD
(under the Fifth, placing universal regulation outside the reach)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(of any government.)Tj
0.75 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Moreover, an extensive body of federal laws, many passed)Tj
1.37 Tw -12 -13 Td
(pursuant to the Commerce Clause, targets all U.S. residents:)Tj
0.83 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(federal criminal law. Indeed, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
144.608 -86.5 Td
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( itself concerned the Con-)Tj
0.14 Tw -144.608 -13.1 Td
(trolled Substances Act and the noncommercial production and)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(consumption of marijuana; nowhere in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( did the Court)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(intimate concern that the federal government was regulating)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(the drug use of "everyone . . . just for being alive and residing)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(in the United States." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bondi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d. at ___, 2011)Tj
3.06 Tw T*
(WL 285683, at *20. Though penalties do not attach until)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(someone has violated the statute, the same is true of the Act's)Tj
4.45 Tw T*
(regulation. Of course, appellants suggest that compelling)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(action is less legitimate under the Commerce Clause than pro-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(hibiting action. I take up that question next.)Tj
89.4 -26 Td
(VI.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Compelling Action)Tj
3.91 Tw -77.4 -26 Td
(Having established that the regulation of "inactivity in)Tj
0.6 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(commerce" does not offend the Commerce Clause, I consider)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(whether federal commerce regulation can properly "force [a])Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(citizen to participate in commerce by mandating that she pur-)Tj
0 Tw T*
(chase a [commodity] . . . or pay a penalty for noncompliance.")Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Appellants' Br. 1.)Tj
2.88 Tw 12 -26 Td
(As I explained at length above, the Supreme Court has)Tj
3.66 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(taught that an enactment is authorized by the Commerce)Tj
3.38 Tw T*
(Clause where Congress could rationally conclude that the)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(object of regulation substantially affects interstate commerce.)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(This inquiry looks only at the relation between the object of)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(regulation and interstate commerce; the content of the regula-)Tj
2.04 Tw T*
(tion\320what it compels or prohibits\320is irrelevant. Indeed, it)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(has long been recognized that "[t]he power of Congress over)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limita-)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(tions other than are prescribed in the Constitution." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(97)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
387 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.6 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(helps to secure all our individual rights, but it does not create)Tj
2.03 Tw 0 -13 TD
(new ones. The Supreme Court's recent decision in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
261.196 -21.4 Td
(Bond v.)Tj
0.28 Tw -261.196 -13 Td
(United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, which granted an individual criminal defendant)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.33 Tw T*
(standing)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( to challenge a federal statute on the grounds that it)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(usurped powers reserved to the states and which discussed at)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(length the ways in which federalism protects individual lib-)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(erty, is not to the contrary. 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct.)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(2355, 2364 \(2011\). Appellants provide no support for their)Tj
2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(suggestion that some novel, heretofore unknown, individual)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(right can spring from the principles of federalism.)Tj
1.71 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Federalism was properly invoked in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.77 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(where, to police the division of authority between state and)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(federal governments, the Court struck down federal regulation)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(of noneconomic activity within "areas such as criminal law)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(enforcement or education where States historically have been)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(sovereign." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 514 U.S. at 564; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 529 U.S.)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(at 599. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s concern about the loss of state)Tj
4.32 Tw T*
(authority within areas traditionally reserved to the states)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(implicates the division of power between state and federal)Tj
2.44 Tw T*
(governments and thus goes to the very core of federalism.)Tj
3.5 Tw T*
(Appellants' individual liberty concerns do not. Appellants)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(suggest that allowing the Act to touch all U.S. residents,)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(whether or not they have voluntarily entered a regulated)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(domain, "threatens . . . the bedrock concept[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.75 Tw (] of . . . individ-)Tj
3.4 Tw T*
(ual freedom." Appellants' Br. 11-12. Federalism does not)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(speak to this issue.)Tj
0.47 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Nor does any recognized individual right. Appellants' rhet-)Tj
1.44 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(oric sometimes suggests a generalized right to be left alone;)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(but outside of a limited right to privacy concerning "the most)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(intimate and personal choices a person may make in a life-)Tj
4.11 Tw T*
(time, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy,")Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(including those "relating to marriage, procreation, contracep-)Tj
5.3 Tw T*
(tion, family relationships, child rearing, and education,")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.3 Tw T*
(Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 505 U.S. 833, 851)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(\(1992\), no such right exists. And any such right springing)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(from substantive due process would bind the states under the)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(96)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
388 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.12 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(at 20;)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
29.12 -8.4 Td
(12)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( likewise, the Eleventh Circuit majority worries that)Tj
2.2 Tw -29.12 -13.1 Td
("[i]ndividuals subjected to this economic mandate have not)Tj
2.71 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(made a voluntary choice to enter the stream of commerce)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(. . . ." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *48. So I will)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(consider the Commerce Clause ramifications of regulating)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("everyone.")Tj
25.116 -26.1 Td
(3.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Federalism & Regulations Affecting Everyone)Tj
1.23 Tw -13.116 -26.1 Td
(I am aware of no "substantial effect" case, in more than a)Tj
0 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, that looks beyond)Tj
4.7 Tw T*
(the class of )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(activities)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( regulated to the class of )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(persons)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 Tw T*
(affected. And this is unsurprising, as the dispositive question)Tj
T*
(is whether the object of regulation substantially affects inter-)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(state commerce; what the affected persons have done to con-)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(sent \(or not\) to the regulation is obviously irrelevant to that)Tj
2.65 Tw T*
(inquiry. Appellants claim that their liberty concern springs)Tj
4.24 Tw T*
(from the principles of federalism rather than black-letter)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause law. Though these principles serve to pro-)Tj
3.5 Tw T*
(tect state sovereignty and the resulting division of power)Tj
1.47 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(helps to secure our liberty, federalism is not an independent)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(font of individual rights.)Tj
0.62 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(As Justice Kennedy explained in his concurrence in )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.64 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
("it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(by the creation of two governments, not one," as power could)Tj
2 Tw T*
(be split between state and federal governments even before)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(each government's powers were further separated among leg-)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(islative, executive, and judicial departments. 514 U.S. at 576.)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(Thus, "[s]tate sovereignty is not just an end in itself: `Rather,)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(diffusion of sovereign power.'" )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(New York v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(505 U.S. 144, 181 \(1992\) \(quoting )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Coleman v. Thompson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(501 U.S. 722, 759 \(1991\) \(Blackmun, J., dissenting\)\). Feder-)Tj
3.02 Tw T*
(alism "enhance[s]" our liberty by disaggregating power; it)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.81 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(12)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (It is no coincidence that "voluntary" or "voluntarily" appears twenty-)Tj
1 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(eight times in appellants' briefs. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -466.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(95)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
389 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.58 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(fact, one would imagine that "sav[ing]" requires "resources")Tj
2.47 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(\(namely, money\) and that "manag[ing]" requires some "ef-)Tj
3.2 Tw T*
(fort." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
31.424 -35.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 10, 21. Though, unlike wheat and marijuana,)Tj
1.87 Tw -31.424 -13.5 Td
(insurance is intangible, appellants do not suggest that inter-)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(state markets in intangible goods or services are less subject)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(to regulation under the Commerce Clause than markets in tan-)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(gible goods; thus, it is difficult to see why the legal import of)Tj
4.06 Tw T*
(the appellants' "sav[ing]" and "manag[ing]" should differ)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(from that of Mr. Filburn's sowing and harvesting.)Tj
1.81 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(But even if appellants had said nothing about saving and)Tj
1.3 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(managing and I accepted that Ms. Waddell and Mrs. Merrill)Tj
3.46 Tw T*
(had truly "exerted no effort and used no resources" with)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(respect to health insurance\320that is, that they had taken no)Tj
1 Tw T*
(steps to self-insure\320it is difficult to make out the legal rele-)Tj
1.84 Tw T*
(vance of this point. Mr. Filburn and Ms. Raich deliberately)Tj
0 Tw T*
(chose to meet their own needs rather than enter commerce and)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(purchase goods on the market and thus they, too, "exerted no)Tj
2.23 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(effort and used no resources" in connection to the relevant)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(markets; why are they more susceptible to Commerce Clause)Tj
5 Tw T*
(regulation than appellants simply because they )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(privately)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.05 Tw T*
(exerted effort and expended resources for a )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(noncommercial)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(end?)Tj
2.62 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(Appellants have provided no express answer, but one is)Tj
0.4 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(implicit in their arguments: in choosing to act, even privately,)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(with notice of regulation, one can be said to consent or at least)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(submit to that regulation. Under this view, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.23 Tw T*
(are distinguishable because they concerned regulated domains)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(which individuals voluntarily entered upon the commence-)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(ment of some "activity." Thus, appellants' complaint that "ap-)Tj
5.75 Tw T*
(pellants in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( could avoid Congress' reach by not)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(manufacturing or possessing marijuana, but here the Appel-)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(lants cannot avoid Congress' reach even if they are not doing)Tj
3.35 Tw T*
(anything." Appellants' Br. 19. Appellants express concern)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(throughout their brief about allowing Congress to "regulate)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
([people] because they are legal citizens who merely exist," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(94)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
390 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.25 Tw 156 635.1 Td
("involved voluntary )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
99.392 -8.4 Td
(activity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, whereas the Act regulates volun-)Tj
0.46 Tw -99.392 -12.6 Td
(tary )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(inactivity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(." Appellants' Br. 19. To the extent that "volun-)Tj
1.3 Tw 0 -12.6 TD
(tary )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(inactivity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(" again suggests deliberate non-participation in)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(the market, this fails to distinguish )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(; yet appellants also)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(seem to be raising a different point. "[I]t was the fact that Mr.)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(Filburn actively grew wheat beyond the quota, even if for per-)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(sonal use, that was significant in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(," as "it was that)Tj
5.76 Tw T*
(activity that constituted economic activity. By contrast,)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
([appellants] have exerted no effort and used no resources." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.05 Tw T*
(at 21. It is )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(this)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( "distinction between )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(activity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(inactivity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
9.38 Tw T*
(at 19\320)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(absolute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( inactivity, not just inactivity \(non-)Tj
3.18 Tw T*
(participation\) in commerce\320that carries the true thrust of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(appellants' argument.)Tj
77.412 -25 Td
(2.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Regulating the "Inactive")Tj
2.15 Tw -65.412 -25.1 Td
(Before I can consider this narrower argument, I must be)Tj
0.96 Tw -12 -12.6 Td
(sure I understand exactly what appellants mean by it. Appel-)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(lants say that "Mr. Filburn actively grew wheat beyond the)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(quota, even if for personal use" while Ms. Waddell and Mrs.)Tj
4.48 Tw T*
(Merrill "have exerted no effort and used no resources.")Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(Appellants' Br. 21. But appellants expressly state that "Miss)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(Waddell and Mrs. Merrill have voluntarily and deliberately)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(decided not to purchase health insurance, but )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(to instead save)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(for and privately manage health care)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 10 \(emphasis)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(added\). It is not clear why "sav[ing] for and privately manag-)Tj
2.4 Tw T*
([ing] health care," a species of what economists call "self-)Tj
4.7 Tw T*
(insurance,")Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (11)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( requires neither "effort" nor "resources"\320in)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
2.07 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25 Td
(11)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0 Ts (Cf.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.07 Tw (18091\(a\)\(2\)\(A\) \("In the absence of the [individual)Tj
0.86 Tw -10 -10.7 Td
(mandate], some individuals would make an economic and financial deci-)Tj
0.28 Tw 0 -10.8 TD
(sion to forego health insurance coverage and attempt to self-insure . . \
. ."\).)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(Because individuals who self-insure are unable to shift risk in the way \
that)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(market insurance does, self-insurance is far more common among collec-)Tj
1.61 Tw T*
(tives or businesses, where it may be efficient. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See generally)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( M. Moshe)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(Porat, Uri Spiegel, Uzi Yaari, Uri Ben Zion, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Market Insurance Versus Self)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(Insurance: The Tax-Differential Treatment and Its Social Cost)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 58 J. Risk)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(& Ins. 657 \(1991\); Patrick L. Brockett, Samuel H. Cox, Jr., and Robert\
C.)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(Witt, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Insurance Versus Self-Insurance: A Risk Management Perspective)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(,)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(53 J. Risk & Ins. 242 \(1986\); Isaac Ehrlich, Gary S. Becker, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Market Insur-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(ance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 80 J. Pol. Econ. 623 \(1972\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -359.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(93)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
391 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.85 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the fact that this Act extends federal regulation to production)Tj
2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for con-)Tj
0 Tw T*
(sumption on the farm." 317 U.S. at 118. Just six years ago, the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Court reaffirmed )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
86.376 -47.4 Td
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s vitality in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, explaining, )Tj
1.18 Tw -64.376 -26 Td
(Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to)Tj
2.91 Tw T*
(regulate purely local activities that are part of an)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(economic `class of activities' that have a substantial)Tj
1.05 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(effect on interstate commerce. As we stated in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wic-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(kard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, "even if appellee's activity be local )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(and though)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(it may not be regarded as commerce)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, it may still,)Tj
3.03 Tw T*
(whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it)Tj
3.78 Tw T*
(exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(commerce.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.46 Tw -22 -26 Td
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. at 17 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 317 U.S. at 125\))Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(\(emphasis added\). The )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court made clear that "Congress)Tj
1.44 Tw T*
(can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself `com-)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(mercial,' in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(regulation of the interstate market in that commodity." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(18. Applying this principle, the Court upheld the regulation of)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(individuals who grew marijuana solely for "home consump-)Tj
0.01 Tw T*
(tion"\320that is, it allowed Congress to regulate individuals who)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(deliberately chose not to participate in commerce. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.96 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Thus, appellants' true quarrel with the Act is more limited)Tj
2.93 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(than their language sometimes suggests. With subheadings)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(like ")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( does not support the district court's conclusion)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(that private economic decisions can be regulated under the)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause," appellants' briefs muddy their real point.)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(Appellants' Br. 20. As just described, it is well settled that)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(Congress may regulate the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(private, noncommercial)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( economic)Tj
7.66 Tw T*
(activities of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(non-market participants)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( when their self-)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(provisioning \(growing wheat or marijuana for themselves\))Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(substantially affects an interstate market. Appellants contend)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(that this "firmly establishe[d]" Commerce Clause law, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(545 U.S. at 17, is inapplicable because )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(92)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
392 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.3 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Appellants urge that the Act is an "unprecedented attempt)Tj
1.44 Tw -12 -13 Td
(to force private citizens who have decided not to participate)Tj
1.07 Tw 0 -13 TD
(in commerce to engage in commerce by mandating that they)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(purchase . . . health insurance . . . ." Appellants' Br. 3. This)Tj
0.4 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(argument presents two distinct questions: \(1\) "[w]hether Con-)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(gress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate a)Tj
3.15 Tw T*
(private citizen's inactivity in commerce"; and \(2\) whether)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(such regulation can include "forc[ing] [a] citizen to participate)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(in commerce by mandating that she purchase a [commodity])Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(. . . or pay a penalty for noncompliance." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
208.458 -126 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 1. I consider)Tj
1.2 Tw -208.458 -13.1 Td
(these questions in turn.)Tj
46.644 -26 Td
(A.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Regulating "Inactivity in Commerce")Tj
1.25 Tw -34.644 -26 Td
(Appellants characterize Mss. Waddell's and Merrill's "de-)Tj
1.22 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(cision not to purchase health insurance and to otherwise pri-)Tj
7.5 Tw T*
(vately manage her own healthcare" as "inactivity in)Tj
3.31 Tw T*
(commerce," which they claim is beyond the reach of the)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 1. As the following brief review of)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(the case law will show, this broader Commerce Clause chal-)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(lenge\320whether it reaches non-market participants \(those "in-)Tj
5.01 Tw T*
(activ[e] in commerce"\)\320has already been litigated. The)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(Supreme Court's "case law firmly establishes" that Congress)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(may regulate those who have opted not to participate in a)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(market when their self-provisioning, considered in the aggre-)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(gate, "substantially affect[s]" an interstate market. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545)Tj
2.62 Tw T*
(U.S. at 17. After explaining why appellants' broader chal-)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(lenge is foreclosed, I consider the far narrower challenge to)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the Act that survives.)Tj
50.976 -26 Td
(1.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Regulating Non-Market Participants)Tj
0.4 Tw -38.976 -26 Td
(Nearly seventy years ago, in the famous case of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard v.)Tj
1.61 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Filburn)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power under)Tj
1 Tw T*
(the Commerce Clause to regulate Mr. Filburn's private, non-)Tj
2.95 Tw T*
(commercial production of wheat. The Court squarely con-)Tj
2.47 Tw T*
(fronted the question: it began its discussion by noting that)Tj
0.54 Tw T*
("[t]he question would merit little consideration . . . except for)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(91)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
393 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.04 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Considering that hospitals are required to provide certain)Tj
0.63 Tw -12 -13 Td
(care to the uninsured, that illness and accidents are nothing if)Tj
0.5 Tw 0 -13 TD
(not unpredictable, and that the costs of medical care are often)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(catastrophic, I have no hesitation in concluding the Congress)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(rationally determined that addressing the $43 billion annual)Tj
1 Tw T*
(cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured could only be)Tj
0.6 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(done via regulation )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
97.452 -86.5 Td
(before)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the uninsured are in need of emer-)Tj
0 Tw -97.452 -13.1 Td
(gency medical treatment. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( teach that we are)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(to take the longer view of legislators; it is difficult to imagine)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(that Commerce Clause analysis would aggregate individuals)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(and allow regulation of entire classes but then, when legisla-)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(tors confront a problem requiring a remedy before emergen-)Tj
2.71 Tw T*
(cies \(and their ever-growing costs\) occur, refuse to permit)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(them to adopt the time-horizon necessary to enact a solution.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.4 Tw T*
(Accord Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *93 \(Marcus,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(J., dissenting\).)Tj
1.04 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Thus, as Congress rationally found virtually universal par-)Tj
1.07 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ticipation in the interstate health care market over the course)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(of residents' lifetimes, the Act does not present an issue of)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(congressional regulation of inactivity. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Accord Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *15 \(Martin, J.\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at *27-30)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(\(Sutton, J.\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *93-*94)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(\(Marcus, J., dissenting\). Rather, courts are asked to pass on)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(regulation of voluntary participation in the interstate health)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(care market that, to be effective, must be preemptive. As it is)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(clear that the regulated behavior substantially affects inter-)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(state commerce and appellants bring no other challenge to)Tj
2.57 Tw T*
(Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, I would)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(hold the Act to be a proper exercise of congressional power.)Tj
1.2 Tw 86.736 -26 Td
(V.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Regulating Inactivity)Tj
2.6 Tw -74.736 -26 Td
(But even if I were to assume that the uninsured are, in)Tj
0.45 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(appellants' phrase, "inactive in commerce," I would be bound)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(to uphold the Act. Despite appellants' several arguments, the)Tj
0.82 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause is not offended by the regulation of "inac-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tivity" or, in proper circumstances, by a purchase mandate.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(90)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
394 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.81 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation)Tj
1.85 Tw 0 -13 TD
(where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of)Tj
1.48 Tw T*
(many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." 317 U.S.)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(at 127-28. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
54.48 -47.4 Td
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( reaffirmed this approach, noting that Com-)Tj
0.42 Tw -54.48 -13.1 Td
(merce Clause analysis looks to the regulated "activities, taken)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(in the aggregate." 545 U.S. at 22.)Tj
12 -26 Td
(Further, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( emphasized that)Tj
1.55 Tw 10 -26 Td
(Congress [need not] legislate with scientific exacti-)Tj
3.01 Tw T*
(tude. When Congress decides that the "total inci-)Tj
3.34 Tw T*
(dence" of a practice poses a threat to a national)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(market, it may regulate the entire class. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United)Tj
2.15 Tw T*
(States v. Perez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 402 U.S. at 154-55 \("[W]hen it is)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(it may do so."\). In this vein, we have reiterated that)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(when a general regulatory statute bears a substantial)Tj
2.57 Tw T*
(relation to commerce, the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(de minimis)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( character of)Tj
0 Tw T*
(individual instances arising under that statute is of no)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(consequence.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.62 Tw -22 -26 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 17 \(some internal quotation marks and citations omit-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ted\).)Tj
1.4 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Under )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, we are to take the view of the)Tj
2.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(legislators, not those who are regulated. Courts look at the)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(aggregated impact of an activity, not the impact of individu-)Tj
0.23 Tw T*
(als; the Commerce Clause authorizes the regulation of an "en-)Tj
5.9 Tw T*
(tire class," regardless of "the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(de minimis)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( character of)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(individual instances." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( We are to put aside "the mechanical)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(application of legal formulas" and look instead to "the actual)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.5 Tw T*
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 317 U.S. at 120, 124. Indeed, it bears repeating, our)Tj
2.13 Tw T*
(task in deciding Commerce Clause challenges "is a modest)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(one" in which we ask "only whether a `rational basis' exists")Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(for Congress to find a substantial effect on interstate com-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(merce. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 22.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(89)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
395 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.18 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the case of a broccoli or GM car mandate, but from correcting)Tj
4.14 Tw 0 -13 TD
(a massive market failure caused by tremendous negative)Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(externalities. Thus, we need not decide today whether the rea-)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(soning of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
50.06 -47.4 Td
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, which were both concerned in)Tj
1.91 Tw -50.06 -13.1 Td
(part about limiting supply in interstate markets for fungible)Tj
0.87 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(goods, extends to artificially inflating demand via a purchase)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(mandate. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 317 U.S. at 128 \(recognizing that even)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(wheat grown for home consumption "overhangs the market)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(and if induced by rising prices tends to flow into the market)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(and check price increases"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. at 19 \(noting that)Tj
4.7 Tw T*
("high demand in the interstate market"\320and consequent)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(higher prices\320is likely to "draw [home consumed] marijuana)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(into that market"\).)Tj
1.9 Tw 12 -26 Td
(For these reasons, I would hold that the failure to obtain)Tj
0.04 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(health insurance substantially affects the interstate markets for)Tj
3.24 Tw T*
(health insurance and health care services. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Accord Thomas)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *12 \(Martin, J.\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at)Tj
2.23 Tw T*
(*24-25 \(Sutton, J.\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(*106 \(Marcus, J., dissenting\).)Tj
12.924 -26 Td
(IV.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Universal Participation in the Health Care Market)Tj
0.11 Tw -0.924 -26 Td
(Nor need I decide today whether the Commerce Clause dis-)Tj
2.83 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(criminates between activity and inactivity. Appellants con-)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(cede that virtually all persons will voluntarily enter into the)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(interstate health services market in their lifetimes, and they)Tj
1 Tw T*
(concede further, as they must, that this constitutes activity in)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(commerce. Yet appellants insist that the Commerce Clause)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(requires Congress to adopt an extremely narrow time-horizon:)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(it may regulate persons seeking health care, but )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(only once)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(they have sought it)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. Appellants' Br. 34. A faithful application)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s teachings requires us to reject this)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(contention.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
3 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( introduced the aggregation principle into Com-)Tj
1.85 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(merce Clause jurisprudence: "That appellee's own contribu-)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(tion to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(88)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
396 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.6 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(upon inference" in the way linking noneconomic acts like the)Tj
0.25 Tw 0 -13 TD
(possession of guns in schools or gender-motivated violence to)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(interstate commerce might have done in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
198.48 -34.4 Td
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.11 Tw -198.48 -13 Td
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 514 U.S. at 567; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 529 U.S. at 615. In)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.95 Tw T*
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court rejected the Government's argument that)Tj
4 Tw T*
(gun possession in schools substantially affected interstate)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(commerce due to the general "costs of crime" or because "the)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(education process," which "in turn, will result in a less pro-)Tj
4.08 Tw T*
(ductive citizenry." 514 U.S. at 564. Likewise, the Court)Tj
1.82 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(rejected Congress's findings in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( because they "fol-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(low[ed] the but-for causal chain from the initial occurrence of)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(violent crime . . . to every attenuated effect upon interstate)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(commerce," chiefly "deterring potential victims" from inter-)Tj
3.46 Tw T*
(state travel, employment, general commercial transactions,)Tj
3.54 Tw T*
("diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and)Tj
2.96 Tw T*
(other costs, and decreasing the supply of and demand for)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(interstate products." 529 U.S. at 615 \(quoting H.R. Rep. No.)Tj
4.22 Tw T*
(103-711, at 385 \(1990\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(reprinted in)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N.)Tj
3.88 Tw T*
(1803, 1853\). Where the proffered "substantial effects" in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
3.37 Tw T*
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( were attenuated, here the effects are)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(direct: considered as a class \(per )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Wickard)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s aggre-)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(gation principle, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Wickard v. Filburn)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 317 U.S. 111, 127-)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(28 \(1942\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. at 22; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(post)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( pp. 88-90\), those who)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(fail to purchase health insurance will seek and receive medi-)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(cal care they cannot afford; the cost of that care \($43 billion)Tj
4.1 Tw T*
(in 2008\) is borne by the hospitals, which are forced to)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(increase the price of health care services.)Tj
0.07 Tw 12 -26 Td
(And recognizing that the uninsured's passing on $43 billion)Tj
2.55 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(in health care costs to the insured constitutes a substantial)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(effect on interstate commerce in no way authorizes a purchase)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(mandate for broccoli or any other vegetable. The health care)Tj
2 Tw T*
(market is unique in that its product \(medical care\) must be)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(provided even to those who cannot pay, which allows some)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(\(the uninsured\) to consume care on another's \(the insured's\))Tj
3.03 Tw T*
(dime. Here the substantial effect on commerce comes not)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(from simply manipulating demand in a market, as it would in)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(87)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
397 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.45 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ble, judicially administrable limiting principles." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
238.818 -8.4 Td
(Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___)Tj
1.2 Tw -238.818 -12.7 Td
(F. 3d at ___, 2011 WL at *54. This is not so.)Tj
0.18 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(I begin by noting that whether failure to purchase insurance)Tj
3.57 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(substantially affects interstate commerce relies on a great)Tj
1.55 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(number of factual determinations. These are to be made not)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(by the courts but by Congress, an institution with far greater)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(ability to gather and critically evaluate the relevant informa-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(tion. As the Supreme Court noted in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, "[i]n assessing the)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, . . .)Tj
3.39 Tw T*
([our] task . . . is a modest one. We need not determine)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, sub-)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(stantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(a `rational basis' exists for so concluding." 545 U.S. at 22.)Tj
1.67 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(The Act's effects on interstate commerce depend in large)Tj
0.97 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(part on an unusual feature of the health care market. By fed-)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(eral law, a hospital participating in Medicare must stabilize)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(any patient who arrives at its emergency room, regardless of)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(the patient's ability to pay for treatment, Emergency Medical)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.57 Tw (1395dd\(b\)\(1\),)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(and many states impose similar requirements, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, H.R.)Tj
6.41 Tw T*
(Rep. No. 99-241\(III\), at 5 \(1985\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(reprinted in)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 1986)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(U.S.C.C.A.N. 726, 726-27 \(noting that "at least 22 states have)Tj
1.28 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(enacted statutes or issued regulations requiring the provision)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(of limited medical services whenever an emergency situation)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(exists" and that "many state court rulings impose a common)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(law duty on doctors and hospitals to provide necessary emer-)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(gency care"\). As a result, the uninsured often receive care that)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(they are unable to pay for: in 2008, hospitals provided $43)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(billion in uncompensated care to the uninsured. 42 U.S.C.)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.57 Tw (18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). To cope with these costs, hospitals increase)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
(the price of health care services, which in turn leads to rising)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(health insurance premiums; Congress found that "[t]his cost-)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(shifting increases family premiums by on average over $1,000)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(a year." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Recognizing these direct effects on the health insurance and)Tj
0.9 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(health services markets does not require us to "pile inference)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(86)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
398 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(field of the regulation of health benefits, and many state and)Tj
0.04 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(local attempts to regulate health insurance have been held pre-)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(empted. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
43.448 -35.4 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Retail Industry Leaders Ass'n v. Fielder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.77 Tw -43.448 -13.5 Td
(475 F.3d 180 \(4th Cir. 2007\) \(holding Maryland's Fair Share)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(Health Care Fund Act, which regulated employer health care)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(spending, preempted by ERISA, as "ERISA establishes com-)Tj
4 Tw T*
(prehensive federal regulation of employers' provisions of)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(benefits to their employees"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(but see Metropolitan Life Ins.)Tj
5.14 Tw T*
(Co. v. Mass.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 471 U.S. 724 \(1985\) \(holding that state)Tj
2.24 Tw T*
(mandated-benefit law survives ERISA preemption as a law)Tj
2.35 Tw T*
(that "regulates insurance, banking, or securities" within the)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(meaning of ERISA's savings clause\). Given nearly half a cen-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(tury of extensive federal involvement in the national health)Tj
3.87 Tw T*
(insurance and health services sectors, it seems clear that)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.75 Tw T*
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
('s interest in protecting areas of tradi-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tional state sovereignty is not directly implicated.)Tj
0.56 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(That said, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( do remind us that the scope)Tj
1.96 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(of the Commerce Clause is finite and that its jurisprudence)Tj
1.7 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(must admit to bounding principles. Thus courts must assure)Tj
4.61 Tw T*
(themselves that upholding the Act under the Commerce)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Clause would not effectively create a federal police power. )Tj
92.736 -26.7 Td
(B.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Substantial Effects)Tj
2.73 Tw -80.736 -26.6 Td
(Appellants argue that if we were to hold that failure to)Tj
0.4 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(obtain insurance substantially affects interstate commerce, we)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(would be forced to find that the failure to purchase )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(any)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( mar-)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(keted product substantially affects interstate commerce. Thus,)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(they quote )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida ex rel. Bondi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, where the district court for)Tj
0 Tw T*
(the Northern District of Florida found the Act unconstitutional)Tj
2.63 Tw T*
(in part because it believed that a Commerce Clause broad)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(enough to authorize the Act must also support purchase man-)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(dates for broccoli or GM cars. Appellants' Reply Br. 9 \(quot-)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(ing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bondi)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d at ___, ___, 2011 WL 285683, at)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(*24\). The Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court on)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(that point, expressed similar fears that there are no "cogniza-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(85)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
399 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.58 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(tinction between what is truly national and what is truly)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(local." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
35.424 -21.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 617-18.)Tj
2.03 Tw -23.424 -26 Td
(Without doubt, appellants are correct to insist that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.4 Tw -12 -13 Td
(and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( remind us that any formulation of the Com-)Tj
2.48 Tw T*
(merce Clause must admit to limiting principles that distin-)Tj
3.6 Tw T*
(guish the "truly national" from the "truly local." But the)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(concern directly animating )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(\320the noneco-)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(nomic character of the regulated activities\320is not present in)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(this case, where the failure to obtain health insurance is mani-)Tj
2.11 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(festly an economic fact with direct effects on the interstate)Tj
3.08 Tw T*
(markets for both health insurance and health services. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf.)Tj
0.86 Tw T*
(Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011 WL at *11-12 \(Martin,)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(J.\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d, at ___, 2011 WL at *94, *106 \(Marcus,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(J., dissenting\).)Tj
1.4 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Nor can it be said that health insurance or health services)Tj
0.78 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(have "always been the province of the states" in the way that)Tj
2.58 Tw T*
(education, family law, and criminal law have been. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(529 U.S. at 618. Since the Social Security Act of 1965, Pub.)Tj
T*
(L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, established Medicare and Medic-)Tj
0.82 Tw T*
(aid benefits, the federal government has been the single larg-)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(est provider in the interstate health insurance market and the)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(largest purchaser in the health services market. Federal dollars)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(have accounted for more than one-quarter of all health spend-)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(ing each year since 1974; in 2008, Americans spent $2.3 bil-)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(lion on health services, of which the federal government paid)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(more than $815 million\320nearly 35%. Ctrs. for Medicare &)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(Medicaid Servs., National Health Expenditure Amounts by)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(Type of Expenditure and Source of Funds: Calendar Years)Tj
4.44 Tw T*
(1965-2019. The year 1974 also saw the passage of the)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(Employee Retirement Income Act \(ERISA\), which has a)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
("broadly worded" and "clearly expansive" preemption provi-)Tj
5.28 Tw T*
(sion. 29 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
5.28 Tw (1144\(a\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel.)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(Breiner)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 532 U.S. 141, 146 \(2001\). Through ERISA, as well)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(as later enactments like the Health Insurance Portability and)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat.)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(1936, the federal government has come to occupy much of the)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(84)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
400 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.08 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(to interstate commerce, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
118.548 -8.4 Td
(i.e.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, those activities that substantially)Tj
0.1 Tw -118.548 -13 Td
(affect interstate commerce," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( held that gun possession in)Tj
1.32 Tw 0 -13 TD
(schools did not substantially affect interstate commerce. 514)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(U.S. at 559-60 \(internal citations omitted\). The Court worried)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(that to identify the effect of guns in schools on interstate com-)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(merce it "would have to pile inference upon inference in a)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(sort retained by the States." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 567. If gun possession in)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(schools were held to be substantially related to interstate com-)Tj
2.58 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(merce simply because such incidents harmed our "national)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(productivity," then "Congress could regulate any activity that)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(it found was related to the economic productivity of individ-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(ual citizens" and it would be "difficult to perceive any limita-)Tj
2.7 Tw T*
(tion on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(enforcement or education where States historically have been)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(sovereign." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 564.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.87 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( further clarified the holding of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. The Court)Tj
0.24 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(explained that "a fair reading of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( shows that the noneco-)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(nomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to)Tj
0.89 Tw T*
(our decision in that case." 529 U.S. at 610. Without "express)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(congressional findings regarding the effects upon interstate)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(commerce of gun possession in a school zone," the Court)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(refused to find a substantial effect upon interstate commerce,)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(as it believed "the link between gun possession and . . . inter-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(state commerce was attenuated." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 612. The Court noted)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(that it has "upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(activity only where that activity is economic in nature." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at)Tj
5.01 Tw T*
(613. Because the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court found that "[g]ender-)Tj
2.9 Tw T*
(motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(phrase, economic activity" and that their effects on interstate)Tj
3.2 Tw T*
(commerce \(many of which were expressly enumerated by)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(Congress\) are "attenuated," it struck down the challenged)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(congressional regulation of these crimes. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 613, 615. As)Tj
0.59 Tw T*
(it did in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court emphasized that the "regulation . . .)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(of intrastate violence . . . has always been the province of the)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(States" and affirmed that "[t]he Constitution requires a dis-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(83)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
401 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.81 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Act's individual and employer mandates and request declara-)Tj
1.55 Tw 0 -13 TD
(tory and injunctive relief. They allege that the mandates are)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(outside Congress's Article I powers and that the individual)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(mandate's religious exemptions effect violations of the First)Tj
3.11 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses as)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(well as the equal protection component of the Fifth Amend-)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(ment's Due Process Clause. Appellants' chief contention is)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(that the individual mandate was not validly enacted pursuant)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(to Congress's commerce power because it regulates what they)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(call "inactivity." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
85.056 -126 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 1. The district court carefully parsed)Tj
3.08 Tw -85.056 -13.1 Td
(appellants' arguments and dismissed their suit pursuant to)Tj
3.32 Tw T*
(Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\), concluding that)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(appellants had failed to state a legally sufficient claim. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Liberty)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(University, Inc. v. Geithner)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611 \(W.D. Va.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(2010\). For the following reasons, I would affirm.)Tj
53.466 -26 Td
(III.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Constitutionality, Inactivity Aside)Tj
1.25 Tw -41.466 -26 Td
(Putting aside appellants' "inactivity" argument, to which I)Tj
1.47 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(return in Parts IV and V, I first consider whether the Act is)Tj
3.51 Tw T*
(otherwise authorized under Congress's "power to regulate)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Gon-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(zalez v. Raich)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. 1, 16-17 \(2005\). In particular, I ask)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(whether the Act runs afoul of the teachings of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States)Tj
1.56 Tw T*
(v. Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, two cases in which)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(the Supreme Court enforced limits on the Commerce Clause)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(so as not to "convert congressional authority under the Com-)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(merce Clause to a general police power." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 514 U.S.)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(549, 567 \(1995\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 529 U.S. 598, 617-19 \(2000\).)Tj
1.2 Tw 88.302 -26 Td
(A.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw (Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.11 Tw -76.302 -26 Td
(In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the Supreme Court struck down two)Tj
5.23 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(congressional enactments because the objects of regula-)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(tion\320the possession of guns in school zones in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lopez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, vio-)Tj
6.54 Tw T*
(lence against women in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(\320were noneconomic.)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(Affirming that "Congress' commerce authority includes the)Tj
1.67 Tw T*
(power to regulate those activities having substantial relation)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(82)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
402 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.8 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(expenses. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
54.12 -8.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.8 Tw (1396a\(10\)\(A\)\(i\)\(VIII\), 18071; 26 U.S.C.)Tj
1.2 Tw -54.12 -12.7 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (36B.)Tj
0.08 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Fourth, the Act requires that individuals keep up "minimum)Tj
0.58 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(essential [health insurance] coverage." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.58 Tw (5000A. In partic-)Tj
1.53 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(ular, it directs that "[a]n applicable individual shall for each)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(any [applicable] dependent . . ., is covered under minimum)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(essential coverage for such month." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Appellants term this)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(the "individual mandate," and it is the chief target of their)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(suit. Appellants' Br. 3. Congress found that hospitals pro-)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(vided $43 billion in uncompensated care to the uninsured in)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(2009, and that these costs were shifted onto insured individu-)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(als, "increas[ing] family premiums by on average over $1,000)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(a year." 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.13 Tw (18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). It also found that, "[b]y)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(significantly lowering the number of the uninsured, the [mini-)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(mum coverage] requirement, together with the other provi-)Tj
0.56 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(sions of th[e] Act, will lower health insurance premiums." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.47 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Congress created two religious exemptions to the individ-)Tj
1.33 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(ual mandate: a religious conscience exemption and a health-)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(care sharing ministry exemption. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.28 Tw (5000A\(d\)\(2\). I)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(discuss the particulars of these exemptions in Part VIII, where)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(I consider appellants' First Amendment claims.)Tj
0.44 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Fifth, the Act created tax incentives making it more afford-)Tj
2.55 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(able for small businesses to offer health insurance to their)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(employees. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (45R.)Tj
1.64 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(Finally, the Act required "applicable large employers . . .)Tj
1.14 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(to offer to its full-time employees \(and their dependents\) the)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an)Tj
3.15 Tw T*
(eligible employer-sponsored plan" if at least one full-time)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(employee is receiving federal subsidies for health insurance.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.12 Tw T*
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.12 Tw (4980H\(a\). Appellants call this the "employer mandate.")Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Appellants' Br. 3.)Tj
2 Tw 12 -25.4 Td
(Appellants Michele Waddell, Joanne Merrill, and Liberty)Tj
1.5 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(University assert an array of constitutional challenges to the)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(81)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
403 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.31 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(though by its terms it is limited to "taxes," I cannot join the)Tj
0.23 Tw 0 -13 TD
(majority. Where Congress expressly rejected the term "tax" in)Tj
0.06 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(favor of "penalty," and where it appears that application of the)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(AIA would do little to further the purposes of the AIA, but)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(would do much to frustrate the Affordable Care Act's reforms)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(desired by the Congress that approved the Act, I would hold)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(that the AIA does not strip us of jurisdiction. Thus, I would)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(reach \(and I do indeed reach\) the merits of appellants' chal-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(lenges.)Tj
118.41 -26 Td
(II.)Tj
9 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
129.402 -139.1 Td
( )Tj
1.2 Tw (The Act)Tj
0.75 Tw -117.402 -26 Td
(After a months-long national debate, the Patient Protection)Tj
1.57 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(and Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23,)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(2010. Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(amended by)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( The)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub.)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 \(2010\). The Affordable Care)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(Act is comprised of a half-dozen initiatives designed to)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(reduce the costs of health care and the number of Americans)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(who remain uninsured.)Tj
2.48 Tw 12 -26 Td
(First, the Act creates "health benefit exchanges" in each)Tj
0.3 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(state, which are regulated to increase transparency concerning)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(premium increases and claim denials and which offer market-)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(based incentives tied to increases in efficiency and better)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(health outcomes. 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (18031\(e\), \(g\).)Tj
0.57 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Second, the Act prevents insurers from rejecting applicants)Tj
2.36 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(with preexisting conditions \(the "guaranteed issue" require-)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(ment\) and bars insurers from charging higher premiums to)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(those with serious medical conditions or a history of past ill-)Tj
2.6 Tw T*
(ness \(the "community rating" requirement\). )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.6 Tw (300gg \261)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(300gg-3. )Tj
1.28 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Third, the Act makes more Americans eligible for Medic-)Tj
0.35 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(aid, and to many of those who earn too much to receive Med-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(icaid it grants tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(premiums and pledges federal dollars to reduce out-of-pocket)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(80)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
404 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.51 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(and explains that "[t]he question here is whether the AIA is)Tj
2.34 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(one of these `contexts.'" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
129.228 -21.7 Td
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 24 n.4 \(internal quotation)Tj
3.73 Tw -129.228 -13.3 Td
(marks omitted\). To my mind, the proper question is not)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(whether "taxes" and "penalties" are always "mutually exclu-)Tj
3.04 Tw T*
(sive" under the AIA, but whether Congress, in creating a)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(later-enacted exaction, intended to create a "tax" for purposes)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(of the AIA. But the more important question of "context" is)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(this: whether, in light of the context provided by Congress's)Tj
4.55 Tw T*
(deliberate decision to designate the individual mandate's)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(exaction a "penalty" rather than a "tax" and the evidence of)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(Congress's desire to erect no jurisdictional bar to immediate)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(judicial review of the ACA, we should nonetheless interpret)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(the ACA as creating a "tax" within the meaning of the AIA.)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(My effort here, to marshal the historical, jurisprudential, inter-)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(pretive, and, yes, commonsense factors necessary to answer)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(this question, persuades me that we should not. Given this)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(larger context, I do not believe that one interpretation of near)Tj
4.14 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(century-old AIA cases\320cases that fail to devote enough)Tj
3.2 Tw T*
(space to the AIA analysis to even spell out their reason-)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(ing\320should carry the day. If the Supreme Court's vacillations)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(concerning the proper interpretation of the AIA teach us any-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(thing, they teach us that context matters.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (10)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts ( )Tj
131.7 -26.3 Td
(* * * *)Tj
2.33 Tw -119.7 -26.3 Td
(Because I do not believe that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( instruct)Tj
0.33 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(courts to eschew our ordinary methods of statutory interpreta-)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(tion and I do not agree that the AIA reaches )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(all)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exactions)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.6 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(10)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Justice Powell summarized the history of the AIA as follows, in part:)Tj
1.15 Tw 8 -16.2 Td
([T]he Court's unanimous opinion in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Williams Packing)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( indicates)Tj
0.03 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(that the case was meant to be the capstone to judicial construction)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(of the Act. It spells an end to a cyclical pattern of allegiance to)Tj
0.65 Tw T*
(the plain meaning of the Act, followed by periods of uncertainty)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(caused by a judicial departure from that meaning, and followed)Tj
1 Tw T*
(in turn by the Court's rediscovery of the Act's purpose. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
1.19 Tw -18 -16.2 Td
(Bob Jones Univ.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 742. Rediscoveries of congressional intent)Tj
1 Tw T*
(abound in the law and should not surprise us. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -378.05 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(79)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
405 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3.25 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(doubt)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
27.336 -8.4 Td
(\320this is precisely the question we are deciding )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(sua)Tj
1.2 Tw -27.336 -13 Td
(sponte)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(\320our case is nothing like implicit repeal cases.)Tj
1.18 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Of course, my approach fully recognizes that the AIA has)Tj
1.3 Tw -12 -13 Td
(legal force. But, as the AIA can undoubtedly be sidestepped)Tj
0.03 Tw 0 -13 TD
(by any Congress as it creates a new exaction \(at the very least,)Tj
0.02 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(in the majority's view, by a clear statement that the AIA is not)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(to apply\), the AIA )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(is)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( non-binding on future Congresses. When)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(courts determine the application of the AIA to the ACA, they)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(are only considering the application of one Congressional)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(enactment to a later one. Because one Congress cannot bind)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(a later one, the 111th Congress was fully within its preroga-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(tive to indicate, even if only implicitly, that the AIA should)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(not apply. )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(See United States v. Winstar Corp.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, 518 U.S. 839,)Tj
5.4 Tw T*
(872 \(1996\) \(plurality op.\) \(quoting Blackstone for "the)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(centuries-old concept that one legislature may not bind the)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(legislative authority of its successors"\). The independent legal)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(force of the AIA does not spring from the fact that it can trap)Tj
1.82 Tw T*
(future, unwary Congresses, but rather from the fact that we)Tj
1.4 Tw T*
(must seek to harmonize its terms with that of future legisla-)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(tion. That is, the AIA is not binding on )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(Congress)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, it is binding)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(on )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(us, the judiciary)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(.)Tj
1.78 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Finally, as for the majority's suggestion that policy argu-)Tj
2.38 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ments favor its position because a contrary holding "might)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(have serious long-term consequences for the Secretary's reve-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(nue collection," )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(ante)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( p. 38, I would simply note again that the)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(Secretary of the Treasury is a party before us and argues that)Tj
2.8 Tw T*
(the AIA does not apply. Indeed, I cannot find a Supreme)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(Court case where the AIA has been applied over the objection)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(of the Secretary.)Tj
145.5 -26 Td
(3.)Tj
1.36 Tw -133.5 -26 Td
(The majority suggests that the issue presented here is one)Tj
0.27 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(of "context," and I agree. The majority accepts "the Sixth Cir-)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(cuit's general observation that there are `contexts' in which)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(the law treats `taxes' and `penalties' as mutually exclusive")Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(78)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
406 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.55 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(of the AIA, it must apply to any and all exactions. Given that)Tj
5.17 Tw 0 -13 TD
(the Supreme Court has never recognized such a clear-)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(statement rule, it seems to me that this turns the ordinary prin-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ciples of statutory interpretation on their head.)Tj
1.67 Tw 12 -26 Td
(As Justice Kennedy recently recognized for a plurality of)Tj
1.01 Tw -12 -13 Td
(the Court, clear-statement rules are designed to "avoid appli-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(cations of otherwise unambiguous statutes that would intrude)Tj
2.13 Tw T*
(on sensitive domains in a way that Congress is unlikely to)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(have intended had it considered the matter." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
223.568 -125.4 Td
(Spector v. Nor-)Tj
0.87 Tw -223.568 -13.1 Td
(wegian Cruise Line Ltd.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 545 U.S. 119, 139 \(2005\) \(plurality)Tj
2.41 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(op.\). Justice Kennedy even warned in his plurality opinion)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(against "convert[ing] the clear statement rule from a principle)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(of interpretive caution into a trap for an unwary Congress.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.13 Tw T*
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( That seems to be precisely what the majority does today.)Tj
3.28 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Presumably because the majority believes such a clear-)Tj
1.61 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(statement rule applies, it asserts that "[t]o infer an intent on)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(the part of the 2010 Congress to implicitly exempt this pre-)Tj
0 Tw T*
(enforcement challenge from the AIA bar would be tantamount)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(to inferring an implicit repeal of that bar." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 36. But our)Tj
0.39 Tw T*
(case is nothing like implicit repeal cases like )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(TVA v. Hill)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 437)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(U.S. 153 \(1978\), which the majority cites in that paragraph.)Tj
4.85 Tw T*
(In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Hill)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court considered whether continued federal)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(appropriations for a dam after notice that construction was)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(being challenged under the Endangered Species Act worked)Tj
1.64 Tw T*
(an implicit repeal of the Act with respect to the dam. In an)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(implicit repeal case, the Court is forced to consider whether)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(Congressional action )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(definitively to the contrary)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( of an earlier)Tj
1 Tw T*
(enactment works an implied repeal. In our case, on the other)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(hand, we are simply asking )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(whether)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Congress )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(created)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( with)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(the ACA the sort of exaction to which the earlier act \(the)Tj
3.25 Tw T*
(AIA\) applies. This requires us to construe both the word)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
("taxes" under the AIA and the word "penalty" in the ACA,)Tj
2.95 Tw T*
(applying our ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. We)Tj
1.04 Tw T*
(look first to the text itself, and, after finding that it is at best)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(ambiguous, we look to legislative history and Congressional)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(purpose. Because the application of the AIA to the ACA is )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(in)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(77)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
407 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.66 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(in other chapters; indeed, it chose not to do so in Chapter 48,)Tj
0.17 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(in which the individual mandate is found. Giving force to sec-)Tj
3.5 Tw T*
(tion 6665\(a\)\(2\) in no way contradicts section 7806\(b\) by)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(drawing a prohibited implication from the "location or group-)Tj
3.87 Tw T*
(ing" of Internal Revenue Code \(IRC\) provisions. Section)Tj
0 Tw T*
(7806\(b\) prohibits inferences drawn )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
171.96 -75.4 Td
(from the location or group)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.16 Tw -171.96 -13.4 Td
(itself; instructions can still flow from section 6665\(a\)\(2\) that)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(are to apply only to a specified chapter. This seems to me to)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(be beyond serious doubt. Likewise, section 7806\(b\) does not)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(prohibit courts interpreting one provision of the IRC from)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(looking to other provisions of the IRC and noting that, where)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(Congress has desired a particular result, it has stated so. To)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(suggest that a court cannot draw the traditional inference from)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(Congress's decision to define "penalty" as inclusive of "tax")Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(in other chapters and its failure to do so here seems wholly)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(unwarranted by section 7806\(b\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (9)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.85 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.6 Td
(In the final analysis, the majority's approach essentially)Tj
0.96 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(imposes a clear-statement rule on Congress, making the AIA)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(applicable to )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(all)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exactions, regardless of statutory language)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(and in disregard of apparent Congressional intent, unless Con-)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(gress had the foresight to expressly exempt an exaction from)Tj
2.16 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(the AIA. The majority concedes, as it must, that the 111th)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(Congress could have exempted the individual mandate from)Tj
2.43 Tw T*
(the AIA, but it suggests that the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(only way)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Congress could)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(avoid the AIA's bar on immediate judicial review of the ACA)Tj
0 Tw T*
(is by amending the AIA itself to include an express exemption)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(for the ACA or \(in what amounts to the same thing\) by refer-)Tj
1.84 Tw T*
(encing the AIA by name in the ACA. That is, the majority)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(seems to believe that a clear-statement rule is operative here,)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(and that absent a clear statement regarding the inapplicability)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.03 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(9)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (I do not suggest that "we [should] infer from \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.03 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) a )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(categorical)Tj
0.58 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(exclusion)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( from the term `tax' of all non-Chapter 68 penalties." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( p. 31)Tj
1.23 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(\(emphasis added\). Rather, the fact that Congress has directed us to tr\
eat)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
2.53 Tw T*
(some)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( "penalties" as "taxes" simply makes it less likely that Congress)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(desired this result where it enacted no such direction \(and in fact exp\
ressly)Tj
1 Tw T*
(rejected the term "tax" for the term "penalty"\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -421.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(76)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
408 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.04 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ties' . . . count as `taxes.'" Indeed, where Congress has wished)Tj
0.93 Tw 0 -13 TD
("penalty" to be treated as a "tax," it has said so. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
240.114 -21.4 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 26)Tj
7.08 Tw -240.114 -13 Td
(U.S.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
7.08 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\), 6671\(a\) \(directing that "tax" be)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
("deemed also to refer to . . . penalties" in Chapter 68 of the)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(Internal Revenue Code\). It is not at all surprising that Con-)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(gress has employed this shorthand when defining the Secre-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tary's authorities.)Tj
0.92 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The problematic leap is this: simply because the AIA gen-)Tj
1.57 Tw -12 -13 Td
(erally protects the Secretary's assessment authority does not)Tj
2.43 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(mean that the AIA must apply to )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(all)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exactions. The many)Tj
2 Tw T*
(exemptions included in the AIA as currently codified show)Tj
T*
(that Congress has often wished to exempt certain exactions)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(from the AIA. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it seems)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(improper for a court to insist that "taxes" means )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(any)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exaction)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(\(despite the fact that Congress does not say so\) and thereby)Tj
1 Tw T*
(to undercut Congress's deliberate decision to reject designat-)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(ing an exaction as a "tax" and instead to call it a "penalty.")Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(Given that we have been cited no cases that would require)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(such a large redrafting of the AIA\320other "penalties" to which)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(the AIA have been applied were placed in Chapter 68, which)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(expressly directs that all references to "tax" in the IRC are to)Tj
3.11 Tw T*
(refer also to the Chapter's "penalties"\320I believe that this)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
("broadest possible" interpretation of the AIA is unwarranted)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(and unwise.)Tj
1.96 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The majority appears to reject the legal force of sections)Tj
2.92 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), arguing that section 7806\(b\) "for-)Tj
2.24 Tw T*
(bid[s] courts from deriving any `inference' or `implication')Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(from the `location or grouping of any particular section or)Tj
1.87 Tw T*
(provision or portion of this title.'" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 31. This puzzles)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(me, as it is absolutely clear that sections 6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(have the force of law. Section 6665\(a\)\(2\) directs that "any ref-)Tj
3.23 Tw T*
(erence in this title to `tax' imposed by this title shall be)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(deemed also to refer to . . . penalties provided by this chap-)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(ter." This instructs courts that Congress wished to make the)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(word "penalty" inclusive of the word "tax" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(in this particular)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(chapter)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \(Chapter 68\). Congress remains free to do otherwise)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(75)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
409 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.02 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ignated by Congress as "taxes")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
150.152 -8.4 Td
(\320in the limited sense that they)Tj
0.27 Tw -150.152 -12.7 Td
(include some exactions that purport to be taxes yet are uncon-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(stitutional\320but they do no more than that.)Tj
1.17 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(As for the majority's final argument, it seems to require a)Tj
2.15 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(logical leap. I reproduce the relevant paragraph for ease of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(reference:)Tj
9 Tw 22 -25.3 Td
( )Tj
0.33 Tw (The Court's broad interpretation of the AIA to bar)Tj
3.88 Tw T*
(interference with the assessment of any exaction)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(imposed by the Code entirely accords with, and)Tj
0.46 Tw T*
(indeed seems to be mandated by, other provisions of)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA does not use)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(the term "tax" in a vacuum; rather, it protects from)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(judicial interference the ")Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(assessment)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( . . . of any tax.")Tj
1.74 Tw T*
(I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.74 Tw (7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). The Secretary's)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(authority to make such an "assessment . . . of any)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(tax" derives directly from another provision in the)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(Code, which charges the Secretary with making "as-)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(sessments of all taxes \()Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(including)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( interest, additional)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(penal-)Tj
3.95 Tw T*
(ties)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(\) imposed by this title." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.95 Tw (6201\(a\) \(emphases)Tj
0.62 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(added\); )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(see also)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.62 Tw (6202 \("assessment of any internal)Tj
4.12 Tw T*
(revenue tax" includes assessment of "penalties"\).)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.32 Tw T*
(Thus, for purposes of the very assessment authority)Tj
3.8 Tw T*
(that the AIA protects, Congress made clear that)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
("penalties" \(as well as "interest, additional amounts,)Tj
1.65 Tw T*
([and] additions to the tax"\) count as "taxes." Con-)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(gress must have intended the term "tax" in the AIA)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(to refer to this same broad range of exactions. See)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(Erlenbaugh v. United States)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, 409 U.S. 239, 243)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(\(1972\) \("[A] legislative body generally uses a partic-)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(ular word with a consistent meaning in a given con-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(text."\).)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
-22 -25.3 Td
(Ante)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( p. 22-23 \(large emphasis mine\).)Tj
1.94 Tw 12 -25.4 Td
(I agree, of course, that "for purposes of the [Secretary's])Tj
1.97 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(assessment authority," Congress made clear that the `penal-)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(74)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
410 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.85 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(which the Affordable Care Act's exaction would clearly be a)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(penalty \(for noncompliance with the individual mandate\)?)Tj
1.78 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(By my count, the majority puts forward three affirmative)Tj
1.21 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(arguments favoring the "broadest possible" definition for the)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(word "taxes" in the AIA: \(1\) )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
146.544 -75.2 Td
(Snyder v. Marks)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 109 U.S. 189)Tj
0.46 Tw -146.544 -13.4 Td
(\(1883\), established a broad definition of "tax" under the AIA;)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(\(2\) the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases show that the AIA is "broader" than)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(the taxing clause; and \(3\) the fact that the IRS grants the Sec-)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(retary the authority to make "assessments of all taxes \()Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(includ-)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(ing)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(assessable penalties\) imposed by this title" implies that the)Tj
2.1 Tw T*
(AIA, which generally protects the Government's interest in)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(effecting unfettered tax assessments, must apply to all exac-)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(tions. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.33 Tw (6201\(a\) \(emphasis added\). I find these)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(arguments unpersuasive. )Tj
2.87 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(First, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( does not establish the broad definition the)Tj
0.3 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(majority cites it for. The Court explains that "tax" "meant that)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(which is in condition to be collected as a tax, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(and is claimed)Tj
2 Tw T*
(by the proper public officers to be a tax)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(." 109 U.S. at 192)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(\(emphasis added\). Thus, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( clearly makes relevant the)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(Commissioner's designation of an exaction and, reasonably)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(viewed, requires that the Commissioner "claim[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.07 Tw (]" an exaction)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
("to be a tax." Here, of course, the Secretary of the Treasury)Tj
1.88 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(is a party before us and supports Congress's designation of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the mandate as a "penalty" rather than a "tax.")Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (8)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.5 Td
(Second, the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases have already been dealt with at)Tj
0.26 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(length above. I agree that they show that the AIA is "broader")Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(than the taxing clause when applied to exactions that are )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(des-)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.62 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(8)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The majority believes the "fundamental problem with this argument is)Tj
0.48 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(that the Secretary still does `claim' that the challenged exaction is a \
`tax,')Tj
0.15 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(albeit one authorized by the Constitution's Taxing Clause." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( p. 28 n.7.)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(As )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( is discussing the use of the word "tax" in the precursor to the)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(modern AIA, I read )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( to refer to the Commissioner's designation)Tj
1 Tw T*
(with respect to the statute. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -421.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(73)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
411 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.28 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(most direct signals it can of its intentions\320it expressly con-)Tj
0.21 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(sidered calling the exaction a "tax" and ultimately decided not)Tj
0.39 Tw T*
(to do so\320)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
50.784 -35.4 Td
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Reorganized CF & I)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( would direct us to)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
3 Tw -50.784 -13.5 Td
(follow Congress's direction)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and treat an exaction denomi-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(nated a "penalty" as a penalty and not as a tax for purposes)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(of the AIA.)Tj
145.5 -26.7 Td
(2.)Tj
2.38 Tw -133.5 -26.7 Td
(Second, the majority's approach relies upon its assertion)Tj
1.93 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(that "[t]he Supreme Court has concluded that the AIA uses)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(the term `tax' in its broadest possible sense" and thus that "the)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(AIA prohibits a pre-enforcement challenge to any exaction)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(that is made under color of their offices by revenue officers)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(charged with the general authority to assess and collect the)Tj
2.97 Tw T*
(revenue." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 22 \(internal quotation marks and braces)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(omitted\).)Tj
2.87 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(This definition is far from self-evident. As the majority)Tj
1.53 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(concedes, taxes and penalties are distinguished in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(some)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( fed-)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(eral statutory "contexts." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 24 n.4. In the very case dis-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(cussed above, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Reorganized CF & I Fabricators)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, which dates)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(from 1996, the Court adopted these definitions for its "func-)Tj
0.83 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(tional" inquiry of the exaction at issue: "A tax is an enforced)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(contribution to provide for the support of government; a pen-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(alty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(an unlawful act." 518 U.S. at 224. The majority reasons that)Tj
2.37 Tw T*
("[n]either the Secretary nor the Sixth Circuit cites a single)Tj
2.83 Tw T*
(case suggesting that [this distinction applies to the AIA].")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.33 Tw T*
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 24 n.4. Of course, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, on which the majority relies,)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(is one major AIA case that distinguishes between taxes and)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(penalties. And, as the Court in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Reorganized CF & I Fabrica-)Tj
2.23 Tw T*
(tors)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( borrowed its definitions of "tax" and "penalty" from a)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
("somewhat different context," it appears that these definitions)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(are not particularly context-specific. 518 U.S. at 224. Thus, if)Tj
1.59 Tw T*
(a court is to perform a "functional examination" of its own,)Tj
3.12 Tw T*
(why would it not use these well-settled definitions, under)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(72)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
412 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.75 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(here\320and, judging from the legislative history, may well not)Tj
2.24 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(have considered application of the AIA specifically\320it did)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(consider whether to attach all the trappings of a "tax" to the)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(exaction \(including, among many others provisions, the AIA\),)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(and decided instead to specify the ones it wanted. The AIA is)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(not among them.)Tj
1.04 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(The majority's second citation for that proposition, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
267.26 -102.6 Td
(United)Tj
1.06 Tw -267.26 -13.5 Td
(States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 518)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(U.S. 213, \(1996\), is much like )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. There the Court deter-)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(mined whether a "tax" imposed on certain funding deficien-)Tj
1.68 Tw T*
(cies constituted an "excise tax" for Chapter 11 purposes \(as)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
("an excise tax" was accorded higher priority than ordinary)Tj
1.51 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(claims\). It prefaced its discussion by recognizing that "Con-)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(gress could have included a provision in the Bankruptcy Code)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(calling [the relevant] exaction an excise tax . . . ; the only)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(question is whether the exaction ought to be treated as a tax)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(\(and, if so, an excise\) without some such dispositive direc-)Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(tion." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 219. Its ultimate conclusion considered legislative)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(history of the exaction at issue and "conclude[d] that the 1978)Tj
3 Tw T*
(Act reveals no congressional intent to reject generally the)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(interpretive principle that characterizations in the Internal)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(Revenue Code are not dispositive in the bankruptcy context)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(. . . ." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 224. Here, where Congress provided one of the)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0.67 Tw 0 -26.3 TD
(here only if it is expressly labeled as being made "`with reference to" \
the)Tj
0.92 Tw 0 -11.4 TD
(AIA." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( 25 n.5. But that very sentence in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( goes on to describe)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(such direction as "any declaration by Congress )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(affecting the manner in)Tj
0.86 Tw T*
(which the provision shall be treated)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(." 188 U.S. at 613 \(emphasis added\).)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(The following citations to "statute after statute" which the majority re\
fer-)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(ences are part of the Court's analysis, the Court tells us, because it m\
ust)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(determine whether the "words [employed by Congress] are not regarded)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(by Congress as imposing a penalty and [thus] should not be so treated by\
)Tj
0.49 Tw T*
(the court," for "[i]f it clearly appear that it is the will of Congress \
that the)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(provision shall not be regarded as in the nature of a penalty, the court\
must)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(be governed by that will." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( I do not mean to suggest that )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( teaches)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(that "an exaction's label controls," )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( p. 25 n.5, only that any Congres-)Tj
0.54 Tw T*
(sional direction that indicates "the will of Congress" on the applicatio\
n of)Tj
1 Tw T*
(the AIA should be considered. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -329.35 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(71)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
413 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.58 Tw 178 635.1 Td
(Although the statute . . . terms the money demanded)Tj
0.38 Tw 0 -13.6 TD
(as "a further sum," and does not describe it as a pen-)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(alty, still the use of those words does not change the)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(nature and character of the enactment. Congress may)Tj
0.18 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(enact that such a provision shall not be considered as)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(a penalty or in the nature of one, with reference to)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(the further action of the officers of the government,)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(or with reference to the distribution of the moneys)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(thus paid, or with reference to its effect upon the)Tj
1.09 Tw T*
(individual, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
77.762 -130.2 Td
(and it is the duty of the court to be gov-)Tj
2.28 Tw -55.762 -13.5 Td
(erned by such statutory direction)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, but the intrinsic)Tj
1 Tw T*
(nature of the provision remains, and, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(in the absence)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(of any declaration by Congress affecting the manner)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(in which the provision shall be treated)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, courts must)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(decide the matter in accordance with their views of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the nature of the act.)Tj
3.28 Tw -22 -26.9 Td
(188 U.S. 605, 612-13 \(emphases added\). Thus, the Court)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(emphasized that it looked to "the nature and character of the)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(enactment" )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(only)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( "in the absence of any declaration by Con-)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(gress" giving direction to the court. Far from supporting the)Tj
3.05 Tw T*
(majority's claim that "[t]he Supreme Court has repeatedly)Tj
3.85 Tw T*
(instructed that congressional labels have little bearing on)Tj
3 Tw T*
(whether an exaction qualifies as a `tax' for statutory pur-)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(poses," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( indicates that Congressional labels that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(direct)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(the court)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( may of course be dispositive. Terming an exaction)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
("a further sum" did not help the Court determine whether or)Tj
1.32 Tw T*
(not that sum was a "penalty"; but Congress's expressly con-)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(sidering calling an exaction a "tax" and then deleting the doz-)Tj
3.69 Tw T*
(ens of references to a "tax" and instead designating it a)Tj
1.49 Tw T*
("penalty" \(as Congress did in the course of its enactment of)Tj
4.52 Tw T*
(the ACA\) )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(does)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( help courts determine whether Congress)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(wished us to view the exaction as a "tax" for purposes of the)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(AIA.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (7)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Though Congress did not expressly reference the AIA)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.01 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.5 Td
(7)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The majority focuses on )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
('s use of the phrase "with reference to,")Tj
1.73 Tw -10 -11.4 Td
(suggesting that )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( would have us consider Congressional direction)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -466.05 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(70)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
414 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.17 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
13.166 -8.4 Td
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the AIA's "taxes" is recognized to be, like any statu-)Tj
3.25 Tw -13.166 -13.5 Td
(tory language, a flexible term that must be interpreted in)Tj
5.66 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(accord with Congressional intent and, when applicable,)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(bounding constitutional mandates. In many cases, Congress's)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(decision to designate something a "tax" will prove disposi-)Tj
3.45 Tw T*
(tive\320indeed, the designation did so in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.83 Tw T*
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( simply reflects the recognition that Congress's use of)Tj
2.02 Tw T*
(the word "tax" in an otherwise non-tax provision \(followed)Tj
1.77 Tw T*
(closely by the word "penalty"\) does not invariably )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(mandate)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.24 Tw T*
(that the AIA be applied\320constitutional concerns can override)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(congressional designations. This is fully in accord with my)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(view of the AIA and its relation to subsequent enactments,)Tj
0.14 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(particularly an expansive programmatic enactment such as the)Tj
1 Tw T*
(ACA that would alter the fabric of many layers of American)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(life.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (6)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts ( )Tj
1.91 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(The majority cites several other cases for the proposition)Tj
0.5 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(that we are to ignore Congressional designations when apply-)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(ing the AIA, instead asking only whether an exaction is intrin-)Tj
1.56 Tw T*
(sically a tax according to its "nature and character." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p.)Tj
3.84 Tw T*
(25 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helwig v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 188 U.S. 605, 613)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(\(1903\)\). I will briefly discuss two of them.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.28 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Helwig v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, for instance, concerned the inter-)Tj
0.55 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(action of a statute that imposed "a further sum" when import-)Tj
3.15 Tw T*
(ers declared a value more than 10% lower than customs')Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(subsequent appraisal and a statute that gave federal district)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(courts exclusive jurisdiction over "penalties" and "forfei-)Tj
3.92 Tw T*
(tures." The passage the majority excerpted from is quite)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(instructive:)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.92 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.3 Td
(6)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (In this regard, Justice O'Connor nicely captured the essential purpose)Tj
0.26 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(of the AIA when she declared: "The AIA `depriv[es] courts of jurisdictio\
n)Tj
0.6 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(to resolve abstract tax controversies . . . .'" )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(South Carolina v. Regan)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 465)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(U.S. 367, 386 \(1984\) \(O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(and see)Tj
0.99 Tw T*
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( at 392 \("the Act generally precludes judicial resolution of all abstra\
ct)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(tax controversies . . ."\). The essential issues presented in this case \
are)Tj
1 Tw T*
(about as far from "abstract tax controversies" as one can get. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -409.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(69)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
415 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
(AIA, there should have been )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
140.628 -8.4 Td
(no room)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( for constitutional avoid-)Tj
0.66 Tw -140.628 -13.1 Td
(ance, and the Court in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( should have held the AIA appli-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(cable and refused jurisdiction.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (4)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.75 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.1 Td
(The majority seems to recognize that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( may appear)Tj
0.24 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(problematic, but it contends that it is not. It argues that ")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.75 Tw T*
(held only that when Congress converts the tax assessment)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(process into a vehicle for )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(criminal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( prosecution, the Due Pro-)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(cess Clause prohibits courts from applying the AIA." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p.)Tj
T*
(29. That was the core holding of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, yes, but the question)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(is whether the Court's construction of the AIA )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(in reaching)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(that holding)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( accords with the majority's rigid interpretative)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(regime constructed ninety years later.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (5)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Under the majority's)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(proposed construction, the term "tax" in the AIA reaches )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(all)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.61 Tw T*
(exactions which the Commissioner is empowered to collect.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.13 Tw T*
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( pp. 22-23. Yet, the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court held that the AIA did )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.07 Tw T*
(reach such an exaction. Though the majority would prefer that)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.02 Tw T*
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( "create[d] only a narrow constitutional limitation" to the)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(AIA, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 29, the Court's holding is simply )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( framed as)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(creating an exception to the AIA. Rather, the Court explained)Tj
0.43 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(that it "constru[ed]" the term "tax" in the AIA \(in accord with)Tj
0.39 Tw T*
("Congress[`s] inten[t]"\) and held that it was not so broad. 229)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(U.S. at 561-62. The majority's view of the AIA, and its corre-)Tj
3.95 Tw T*
(sponding interpretation of these cases, inescapably places)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( in conflict.)Tj
1.77 Tw 12 -26.1 Td
(My reading of these cases, which is fully consistent with)Tj
1.58 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(my approach to the AIA, harmonizes them. Under my view)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.85 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.9 Td
(4)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (This was the view of the dissenting opinion in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, which relied on)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0.73 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(George)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 563 \(Brandeis, J., dissenting\) \("The relief)Tj
0.48 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(should therefore be denied, whatever the construction of section 35, tit\
. 2,)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(of the Volstead Act, and even if it be deemed unconstitutional. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Compare)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 259 U. S. 16, 42 Sup. Ct. 419, 66 L. Ed. 816, decided)Tj
1 Tw T*
(May 15, 1922."\). )Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.36 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14 Td
(5)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Indeed, the rigidity of the majority's approach prompts a reminder that)Tj
0.5 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(we confront here the court's statutory jurisdiction, not its Article III\
juris-)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(diction. Congress grants, and Congress restricts, as it chooses, the sta\
tu-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(tory jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -374.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(68)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
416 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.85 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(a tax for constitutional purposes in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
180.42 -8.4 Td
(Drexel Furniture)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. If the)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.07 Tw -180.42 -12.8 Td
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court were relying on anything beyond the face of the)Tj
1.03 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(statute, surely the Court would have provided some explana-)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(tion of why the enactment qualified as a tax under the AIA)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(but not under the Taxing and Spending Clause.)Tj
4.28 Tw 12 -25.4 Td
(More troubling still, the majority's reading of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.87 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(brings it into conflict with )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. Under the majority's)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(approach, the Court in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( must have simply recognized)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(that "the AIA . . . [reaches] any exaction that is made under)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(color of their offices by revenue officers charged with the)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(general authority to assess and collect the revenue." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 22)Tj
4.28 Tw T*
(\(internal quotation marks and braces omitted\). But these)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(criteria fail to distinguish the "penalty" in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, which was)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(held to be )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(outside)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the AIA. The "penalty" in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( also met)Tj
2.51 Tw T*
(the majority's criteria: the National Prohibition Act simply)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(doubled taxes already assessed and collected by the Commis-)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(sioner, 41 Stat. 305, 317-18 \(1919\), which were laid down in)Tj
1.65 Tw T*
(the Revenue Act of 1918 "on all distilled spirits," and were)Tj
1.14 Tw 0 -12.9 TD
("to be paid by the distiller or importer when withdrawn, and)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(collected under the provisions of existing law," 40 Stat. 1057,)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(1105, Title VI \320 Tax on Beverages, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.47 Tw (600\(a\). That the Court)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(found the exaction tantamount to a criminal penalty does not)Tj
2.82 Tw T*
(change this.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (3)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Thus, by the majority's understanding of the)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.86 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.4 Td
(3)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The majority attempts to sidestep this conflict, nicely arguing that the\
)Tj
0.49 Tw -10 -10.9 Td
(Act "did not authorize the collector to make an assessment under his gen\
-)Tj
0.97 Tw 0 -10.9 TD
(eral revenue authority" because "it converted him into a federal prosecu\
-)Tj
1.95 Tw T*
(tor." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( p. 28-29. But the constitutional failings of the Act does not)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(change the fact that the Commissioner would be collecting the challenged\
)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(tax "under his general revenue authority." The Act did not provide any)Tj
0.65 Tw T*
(separate mechanism for the assessment and collection of this tax, or eve\
n)Tj
0.35 Tw T*
(expressly assign those duties to the Commissioner; it simply stated that\
"a)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(tax shall be assessed . . . and collected . . . in double the amount now\
pro-)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(vided by law" from those illegally manufacturing or selling alcohol. Thu\
s,)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(the Commissioner could only perform such assessments and collections)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(under the "general revenue authority" granted by the Internal Revenue)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(Code. 41 Stat. at 318. That such assessments violated due process does n\
ot)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(change the fact that the revenue officers doing the assessment would be)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(acting "under color of their offices." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( p. 22 \(internal quotation marks)Tj
1 Tw T*
(omitted\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -314.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(67)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
417 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.25 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(This reading of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
95.07 -8.4 Td
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( harmonizes it with the two )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2 Tw -95.07 -13 Td
(cases. As the majority explains, the Supreme Court consid-)Tj
1.42 Tw 0 -13 TD
(ered a tax refund suit in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(held the Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as a "penalty")Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(rather than a "tax." 259 U.S. 20, 38-39 \(1922\). The same day,)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court dismissed, pursuant to the AIA)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(\(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.53 Tw (3224, precursor to the modern AIA\), a pre-collection suit)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(alleging the Child Labor Tax Law was unconstitutional. 259)Tj
1.78 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(U.S. 16 \(1922\). The )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court's reasoning is extremely)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(brief \(in a one-page opinion\): "The averment that a taxing)Tj
1.4 Tw T*
(statute is unconstitutional does not take this case out of [the)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(AIA]." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 20. The question, of course, is )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(why)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the statute,)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(though an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power per)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.39 Tw T*
(Drexel Furniture)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, is still "a taxing statute" for purposes of the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(AIA.)Tj
1.66 Tw 12 -26 Td
(My answer is the more straightforward one: it constitutes)Tj
2.55 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(a "taxing statute" for purposes of the AIA because it )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(pur-)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(ported)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( to be a taxing statute and appeared to be one on its)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(face\320that is, because it was designated as a taxing statute by)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(Congress. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Drexel Furniture)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 34 \(noting exac-)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(tion was called "Tax on Employment of Child Labor," part of)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
("An act to provide revenue . . ."\). Thus, the Court provided)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(no explanation because it relied on the most obvious reason)Tj
0.59 Tw T*
(for deeming the statute at issue a "taxing statute." The major-)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(ity disagrees, arguing that "the Court )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(never mentioned)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the)Tj
0.49 Tw T*
(statutory label" in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and that "it [does not] seem plausi-)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(ble that the Court implicitly relied on that label, given that it)Tj
2.77 Tw T*
(had never before and has never since found an exaction's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(label controlling for statutory purposes." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 27.)Tj
3.52 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Under the majority's approach, the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court must)Tj
3.58 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(have conducted a functional analysis of the exaction and)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(determined that it qualified as a tax. Yet this supposed func-)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(tional analysis appears nowhere in the opinion. It is difficult)Tj
2.86 Tw T*
(to believe that the Court would not bother to specify any)Tj
0 Tw T*
(criteria for determining when an exaction is functionally a tax,)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(given that the Court had just held the statute )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( to qualify as)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(66)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
418 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.56 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the word "taxes" in the AIA, that the Court looked to the)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(exaction's function.)Tj
12 -26 Td
(Thus, the Court reasoned,)Tj
0.9 Tw 10 -26 Td
(Before collection of taxes levied by statutes enacted)Tj
4.66 Tw T*
(in plain pursuance of the taxing power can be)Tj
0 Tw T*
(enforced, the taxpayer must be given fair opportunity)Tj
1.77 Tw T*
(for hearing; this is essential to due process of law.)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(And certainly we cannot conclude, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
195.056 -125.4 Td
(in the absence of)Tj
3.26 Tw -173.056 -13.1 Td
(language admitting of no other construction)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, that)Tj
0.52 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Congress intended that penalties for crime should be)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(enforced through the secret findings and summary)Tj
2.1 Tw T*
(action of executive officers. The guaranties of due)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(process of law and trial by jury are not to be forgot-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ten or disregarded.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.41 Tw -22 -26 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 562 \(emphasis added\). This passage strongly indicates)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(that the Court was applying the canon of constitutional avoid-)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(ance, construing the exaction at issue together with the AIA)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(so as not to run afoul of due process. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf. South Carolina v.)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(Regan)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. 367, 398-400 \(1984\) \(O'Connor, J., concur-)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(ring in the judgment\) \(relying on doctrine of constitutional)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(avoidance to interpret the AIA not to apply to original juris-)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(diction of the Supreme Court\). The functional analysis was)Tj
1.87 Tw T*
(required by the Court's constitutional concerns, as due pro-)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(cess is triggered when the penalty is criminal, whatever its)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(designation by Congress. As the AIA was simply being inter-)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(preted to accord with the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(constitutional)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( mandate of due pro-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(cess\320which binds Congress and thus of course requires that)Tj
1 Tw T*
(we look beyond Congressional labels to the nature and func-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(tion of the exaction\320)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( did not establish a new methodol-)Tj
6.02 Tw T*
(ogy for construing "taxes" under the AIA. Instead, it)Tj
1.72 Tw T*
(recognized that the term "taxes" in the AIA is flexible, like)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(nearly all statutory language, and may admit to alternative)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(constructions. And it affirmed that a court's goal when apply-)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(ing the AIA, like any other statute, is to do so in accord with)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the "true intendment" of Congress. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 561.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(65)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
419 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.55 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(color of their offices by revenue officers charged with the)Tj
1.64 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(general authority to assess and collect the revenue." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
264.292 -21.9 Td
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p.)Tj
1.2 Tw -264.292 -13.5 Td
(22 \(internal quotation marks and braces omitted\).)Tj
145.5 -26.7 Td
(1.)Tj
0.24 Tw -133.5 -26.7 Td
(The majority's functional approach hinges on its interpreta-)Tj
4.58 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(tion of two Supreme Court cases from 1922: )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. 16 \(1922\), and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke v. Lederer)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S.)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(557 \(1922\). I read these cases differently from the manner in)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(which the majority reads them. Because the majority's view)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( brings these cases into conflict, I believe)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(my approach, which harmonizes them, is preferable.)Tj
1.6 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(The majority asserts that in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( "the Court . . . specifi-)Tj
0.58 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(cally found an exaction's label immaterial to the applicability)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(of the AIA." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 26. The )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court held that "[t]he mere)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(use of the word `tax' in an act primarily designed to define)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(and suppress crime is )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not enough)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( to show that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(within the true)Tj
3.37 Tw T*
(intendment of the term)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( a tax was laid." 259 U.S. at 561)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(\(emphases added\). That is, "[t]he mere use of the word `tax'")Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(in a criminal statute\320particularly where, as in the statute at)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(issue in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the word "tax" is immediately followed by the)Tj
6.31 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(word "penalty"\320is not dispositive of Congress's "true)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(inten[t]" regarding application of the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( This is an ordi-)Tj
3.04 Tw T*
(nary exercise in statutory interpretation, not an instruction)Tj
3 Tw T*
(from the Court to disregard Congressional designations as)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("immaterial to the applicability of the AIA." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 26.)Tj
1.3 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(The Court did go on to examine the function of the exac-)Tj
1.21 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(tion, noting that "[w]hen by its very nature the imposition is)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(a penalty, it must be so regarded," but it did )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( do so in the)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(course of an ordinary application of the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S.)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(at 561. Rather, it is clear that the Court considered the func-)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(tion of the exaction because that function \(as a criminal pen-)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(alty\) was relevant to the Court's due process concerns. It was)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(to resolve this constitutional problem, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( simply to construe)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(64)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
420 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.64 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(discovery of the purpose of the draftsmen of a statute," I find)Tj
0.55 Tw 0 -13 TD
(the text of the employer mandate provision ambiguous on the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(application of the Anti-Injunction Act.)Tj
2.14 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Thus, I would again look to legislative history and Con-)Tj
2.37 Tw -12 -13 Td
(gressional purpose. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
100.392 -73.4 Td
(Cf. SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.14 Tw -100.392 -13 Td
(320 U.S. 344, 350-51 \(1943\) \(Jackson, J.\) \(explaining that our)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(canons of statutory construction "long have been subordinated)Tj
1.42 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in)Tj
2.13 Tw T*
(particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy"\).)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(For the reasons stated above, I would hold that Congress did)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(not intend the Anti-Injunction Act to block timely judicial)Tj
2.24 Tw T*
(review of the employer mandate provisions. Accordingly, I)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(would hold that we have jurisdiction to consider all of appel-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(lants' claims.)Tj
95.97 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw ( Majority's View)Tj
3.67 Tw -83.97 -26 Td
(The majority's contrary conclusion relies on two argu-)Tj
0.95 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ments, neither of which I find convincing. First, the majority)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(contends that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(that congressional labels have little bearing on whether an)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(exaction qualified as a `tax' for statutory purposes" and that)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
("the Court has specifically found an exaction's label immate-)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(rial to the applicability of the AIA," displacing the ordinary)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(methods of statutory interpretation with a functional analysis)Tj
3.22 Tw T*
(of the challenged exactions. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( pp. 25-26. Thus, in the)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(majority's view, "it is simply irrelevant what the 2010 Con-)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(gress would have thought about the AIA; all that matters is)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(whether the 2010 Congress imposed a tax." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Ante)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( p. 36. Sec-)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(ond, the majority asserts that "[t]he Supreme Court has con-)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(cluded that the AIA uses the term `tax' in its broadest possible)Tj
3.3 Tw T*
(sense" and thus that this functional analysis sweeps quite)Tj
2.82 Tw T*
(broadly: the majority holds that "the AIA prohibits a pre-)Tj
2.92 Tw T*
(enforcement challenge to any exaction that is made under)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(63)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
421 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.36 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(erty for failure to pay the penalty. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
233.208 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
1.36 Tw (5000A\(g\)\(2\).)Tj
4.47 Tw -233.208 -13 Td
(This indicates that Congress had scant concern for "the)Tj
0.25 Tw 0 -13 TD
(expeditious collection of revenue" from the penalty provision.)Tj
1.41 Tw 12 -26 Td
(A failure to provide immediate judicial review in reliance)Tj
2.7 Tw -12 -13 Td
(on a rather strained construction of the AIA, on the other)Tj
2.46 Tw T*
(hand, might undermine the core purpose of the Affordable)Tj
0.79 Tw T*
(Care Act. In the absence of a conclusive ruling from the fed-)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(eral courts, some individuals may well decide for themselves)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(that the Act is unconstitutional and thus can be ignored. In the)Tj
1 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(case of an ordinary tax this would simply result in some lost)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(revenue and the costs of tax prosecutions; here, it would push)Tj
3.16 Tw T*
(the nation farther from Congress's goal of attaining near-)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(universal health insurance coverage. And, as leaving the con-)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(stitutionality of the Act unsettled would seem likely to create)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(uncertainty in the health insurance and health care industries,)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(which might depress these major sectors of the economy, it)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(seems that application of the AIA would be at cross-purposes)Tj
0.09 Tw T*
(with the Act's reforms. Thus, I believe that there is ample rea-)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(son for me to conclude that Congress had no design that the)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(Anti-Injunction Act might apply to the individual mandate's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(penalty provisions.)Tj
1 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The question of our jurisdiction over appellants' challenge)Tj
2.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(to the analogous penalty attached to the employer mandate)Tj
0.26 Tw T*
(presents a closer question. That exaction is termed "an assess-)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(able payment" in the provision that imposes it, but it is then)Tj
2.65 Tw T*
(twice referred to as a "tax" in later, qualifying provisions.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.97 Tw T*
(Compare Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.97 Tw (4980H\(a\) )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(with id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.97 Tw (4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\). "The)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(. . . ambiguity of statutory language is determined by refer-)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(ence to the language itself, the specific context in which that)Tj
1.39 Tw T*
(language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(whole." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 519 U.S. 337, 341 \(1997\).)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(Given these mixed references, and mindful of the Supreme)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(Court's warning in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 310)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(U.S. 534, 542 \(1940\), that "[t]o take a few words from their)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(context and with them thus isolated to attempt to determine)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(their meaning, certainly would not contribute greatly to the)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(62)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
422 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.31 Tw 168 635.1 Td
("Where, as here, resolution of federal law turns on a statute)Tj
1.7 Tw -12 -13 Td
(and the intention of Congress, we look first to the statutory)Tj
2.33 Tw 0 -13 TD
(language and then to the legislative history if the statutory)Tj
2.9 Tw T*
(language is unclear." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
112.236 -47.4 Td
(Blum v. Stenson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. 886, 896)Tj
1.11 Tw -112.236 -13 Td
(\(1984\). Courts look to legislative history first to see whether)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(it indicates that Congress intended a particular result and then,)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(if not, to find evidence of the purposes of the statute. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Cf.)Tj
2.88 Tw T*
(Dolan v. United States Postal Service)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 546 U.S. 481, 486)Tj
3.13 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(\(2006\) \("Interpretation of a word or phrase depends upon)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(reading the whole statutory text, considering the purpose and)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(context of the statute . . . ."\). Even if the statutory text were)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(unclear here, legislative history indicates that the AIA should)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(not apply.)Tj
1 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Legislative history of the Affordable Care Act reveals that)Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
(Congress never considered application of the Anti-Injunction)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(Act. Nowhere in the Act's voluminous legislative history can)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(I find a single reference to the AIA. And when members of)Tj
4.71 Tw T*
(Congress discussed the inevitable judicial review of the)Tj
2.21 Tw T*
(Affordable Care Act, no one appears to have contemplated)Tj
1.39 Tw T*
(that the AIA might bar such review for the five years, post-)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(enactment, that would have to elapse before a tax refund suit)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(could be brought.)Tj
0.53 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Looking, then, to legislative purpose, it appears that imme-)Tj
0.33 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(diate judicial review of the individual mandate would do little)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(to frustrate the aims of the AIA. The Anti-Injunction Act was)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(intended to "protect[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.84 Tw (] the expeditious collection of revenue.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.55 Tw T*
(South Carolina v. Regan)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. 367, 376 \(1984\). Revenue)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(from the individual mandate's penalty provision will not be)Tj
5 Tw T*
(assessed and collected until the year after the mandate)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(becomes operative\3202015. Judicial review of the mandate in)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(2011 most assuredly will not frustrate "the expeditious collec-)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(tion of revenue" four years later. I also note that Congress for-)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(bid the Internal Revenue Service from employing its primary)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(enforcement mechanisms to collect this penalty: the IRS may)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(not seek the institution of criminal prosecutions by the Justice)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(Department or impose a lien or levy on an individual's prop-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(61)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
423 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.67 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(entitled "Excise tax on individuals without essential health)Tj
1.52 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(benefits coverage," and repeatedly referring to exaction as a)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
("tax"\). Congress deliberately deleted all of these references to)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(a "tax" in the final version of the Act and instead designated)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(the exaction a "penalty." As the Supreme Court noted in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
281.96 -62.4 Td
(INS)Tj
1.63 Tw -281.96 -13.5 Td
(v. Cardoza-Fonseca)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, "[f]ew principles of statutory construc-)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(tion are more compelling than the proposition that Congress)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(does not intend )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(sub silentio)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( to enact statutory language that it)Tj
2.27 Tw T*
(has earlier discarded in favor of other language." 480 U.S.)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(421, 442-43 \(1987\). Thus, it seems odd for the majority to)Tj
4.04 Tw T*
(ignore Congress's deliberate drafting decision to call the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(exaction a "penalty" rather than a "tax.")Tj
3.11 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(When Congress has wished "penalties" to be treated as)Tj
1.09 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
("taxes," it has said so expressly. In Subchapter A of Chapter)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(68 of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress directed that "any)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(reference in this title [Title 26 of the United States Code \(the)Tj
0.27 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(Internal Revenue Code\)] to `tax' imposed by this title shall be)Tj
2.37 Tw T*
(deemed also to refer to the additions to the tax, additional)Tj
6.72 Tw T*
(amounts, and penalties provided by this chapter." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.5 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.5 Tw (6665\(a\)\(1\). Likewise, in Subchapter B of that chapter, Con-)Tj
4.31 Tw T*
(gress instructed that "any reference in this title to `tax')Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the pen-)Tj
6.67 Tw T*
(alties and liabilities provided by this subchapter." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.46 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.46 Tw (6671\(a\). Yet, Congress chose to place the individual man-)Tj
2.68 Tw T*
(date and its "penalty" provisions not in Chapter 68 but in)Tj
3.75 Tw T*
(Chapter 48, which contains no such instructions. Though)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(Congress did provide that this penalty "be assessed and col-)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(lected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under sub-)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(chapter B of chapter 68," and Chapter 68 "penalties" are)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(treated as "taxes," the term "assessment and collection like a)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(tax" does not imply that the penalty should be treated as a tax)Tj
0 Tw T*
(for any and all other purposes. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247 5000A\(g\)\(1\). As the Sixth)Tj
2.26 Tw T*
(Circuit recently observed, "Congress said one thing in sec-)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(tions 665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), and something else in section)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(5000A, and we should respect the difference." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(2011 WL at *7. )Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(60)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
424 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.36 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
6 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
0.36 Tw (7421\(a\).)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (1)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Thus, we have jurisdiction only if the penalty pro-)Tj
0.82 Tw -6 -13.4 Td
(visions attached to the challenged mandates do not constitute)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
("tax[es]" for purposes of the AIA.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (2)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.66 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.6 Td
(The Sixth Circuit recently held that the individual man-)Tj
1.46 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(date's penalty provision was not a "tax" within the meaning)Tj
0.39 Tw T*
(of the AIA. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Thomas More Law Center)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___, 2011)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(WL at *6-*8. Its reasoning is straightforward: Congress spoke)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(only of "tax[es]" in the Anti-Injunction Act, while it deemed)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(the amount owed by those in violation of the individual man-)Tj
1.09 Tw T*
(date a "penalty." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at *7; )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(compare)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.09 Tw (7421\(a\))Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
0 Tw T*
(with id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247 5000A\(b\), \(c\), \(e\), \(g\). And Congress did not simply)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(use the term "penalty" in passing: Congress refers to the exac-)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(tion no fewer than seventeen times in the relevant provision,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(and each time Congress calls it a "penalty.")Tj
0.37 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(In fact, Congress considered earlier versions of the individ-)Tj
0.87 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(ual mandate that clearly characterized the exaction as a "tax")Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(and referred to it as such more than a dozen times. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( H.R.)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(3962, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.38 Tw (501, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \("impos[ing] a tax" in sec-)Tj
2.67 Tw T*
(tion entitled "Tax on individuals without acceptable health)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(care coverage," and repeatedly referring to this exaction as a)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
("tax"\); H.R. 3200, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.05 Tw (401, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \(same\); S. 1796,)Tj
2.72 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.72 Tw (1301, 111th Cong. \(2009\) \("impos[ing] a tax" in section)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.2 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Although appellants also requested declaratory relief, the Declaratory)Tj
2.04 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(Judgment Act "enlarged the range of remedies available in the federal)Tj
2.15 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(courts but did not extend their jurisdiction." )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(Petroleum Co.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 339 U.S. 667, 671 \(1950\); )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(Co.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 99 F.3d 573, 582 \(4th Cir. 1996\). In any case, the Declaratory Judg-\
)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(ment Act expressly excludes claims "with respect to Federal taxes." 28)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.7 Tw (2201\(a\). The Supreme Court has held this exclusion to be "at)Tj
0.54 Tw T*
(least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act." )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 416)Tj
1 Tw T*
(U.S. 725, 732 n.7 \(1974\). )Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
2.18 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14.1 Td
(2)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (This question of statutory interpretation is wholly distinct from the)Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
2.34 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(constitutional)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( question concerning Congress's power under the Taxing)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(and Spending Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.08 Tw (8, cl. 1, to enact these mandates.)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(Because I would hold the Act constitutional under the Commerce Clause,)Tj
1 Tw T*
(I need not and do not reach the latter issue. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -327.95 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(59)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
425 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.05 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(parties argue that we have jurisdiction, "federal courts have an)Tj
1.4 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(independent obligation to . . . raise and decide jurisdictional)Tj
0.01 Tw T*
(questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.88 Tw T*
(Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
200.024 -48.9 Td
(, ___ U.S. ___, ___,)Tj
1.2 Tw -200.024 -13.5 Td
(131 S. Ct. 1197, 1202 \(2011\).)Tj
0.67 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Before today, nine federal judges had expressly considered)Tj
1.63 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, and all nine held)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(it inapplicable to the Affordable Care Act's mandates. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(Thomas More Law Center v. Obama)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011)Tj
3.4 Tw T*
(WL 2556039, at *6-*8 \(6th Cir. June 29, 2011\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Goudy-)Tj
1.44 Tw T*
(Bachman v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0 Tw T*
(764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 695-97 \(M.D. Pa. 2011\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Liberty Univer-)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(sity, Inc. v. Geithner)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611, 627-29 \(W.D. Va.)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(2010\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States Citizens Ass'n v. Sebelius)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 754 F. Supp.)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(2d 903, 909 \(N.D. Ohio 2010\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida ex rel. McCollum v.)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 716 F. Supp.)Tj
1 Tw T*
(2d 1120, 1130-44 \(N.D. Fla. 2010\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Thomas More Law Cen-)Tj
3.33 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(ter v. Obama)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882, 890-91 \(E.D. Mich.)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(2010\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebellius)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 702 F. Supp. 2d)Tj
0 Tw T*
(598, 603-605 \(E.D. Va. 2010\). Although the two circuit courts)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(that have considered challenges to the mandates have split, all)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(six members of those panels agreed that the courts should)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(reach the merits; only the Sixth Circuit panel thought it neces-)Tj
1.87 Tw T*
(sary to discuss the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health &)Tj
1.84 Tw T*
(Human Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178 \(11th Cir.)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(Aug. 12, 2011\) \(reaching the merits without raising the appli-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(cability of the AIA\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Thomas More Law Center)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(___, 2011 WL at *6-*8 \(expressly holding the AIA does not)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(apply\). For the following reasons, I agree with these judges)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(and would hold that the AIA does not strip us of jurisdiction)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(in this case.)Tj
0.24 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(The Anti-Injunction Act, originally enacted in 1867, directs)Tj
1.18 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any)Tj
5.01 Tw T*
(person," certain enumerated exceptions aside. 26 U.S.C.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(58)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
426 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.66 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Appellants bring a similar facial challenge to the Act's)Tj
0.75 Tw 0 -13 TD
(employer mandate, and they also assert Free Exercise, Estab-)Tj
0.5 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(lishment Clause, and Equal Protection claims against the Act.)Tj
2.84 Tw 12 -26 Td
(My good colleagues in the majority hold that the Anti-)Tj
1.63 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Injunction Act strips us of jurisdiction in this case. For rea-)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(sons I explain at length below, I disagree. As I reject the rea-)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(soning and the result of the majority's jurisdictional analysis,)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(I am entitled to reach the merits of appellants' claims. Reach-)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(ing the merits, I would hold that the challenged provisions of)Tj
1.82 Tw T*
(the Act are a proper exercise of Congress's authority under)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(the Commerce Clause to regulate the interstate markets for)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(health services and health insurance. I do not believe that con-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(stitutional review of the Act requires courts to decide whether)Tj
4.11 Tw T*
(the Commerce Clause discriminates between activity and)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(inactivity. But even if I were to assume appellants were "inac-)Tj
0.86 Tw T*
(tive," I could not accept appellants' contention that a distinc-)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(tion between "activity" and "inactivity" is vital to Commerce)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(Clause analysis. I would therefore affirm the district court's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(dismissal of appellants' suit.)Tj
1.95 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Appellants raise two major concerns about upholding the)Tj
3.45 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Act: first, they believe that individual liberty is infringed)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(when the federal government is permitted to regulate )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
259.92 -309.2 Td
(involun-)Tj
0.14 Tw -259.92 -13.1 Td
(tary)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( market participants; second, they fear that our liberty will)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(be further eroded in the future, as a ruling sustaining the Act)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(would permit Congress to establish arbitrary purchase man-)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(dates. Because I take these concerns very seriously, I explain)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(at some length why the Act is a far more limited exercise of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(federal power than appellants fear.)Tj
92.406 -26 Td
(I.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (Anti-Injunction Act)Tj
22.332 -26 Td
(A.)Tj
9 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (My View)Tj
0.81 Tw -102.738 -26 Td
(The majority concludes that the Anti-Injunction Act \(AIA\))Tj
2 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(applies to the challenged provisions of the Affordable Care)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(Act, depriving us of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(57)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
427 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.25 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(dissents from our holding and presents a credible basis for)Tj
2.9 Tw 0 -13 TD
(upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(under the Commerce Clause. However, were I to rule on the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(merits, for the reasons given in this opinion, I would uphold)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on the basis)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(that Congress had the authority to enact the individual and)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(employer mandates, which operate as taxes, under its taxing)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(power. Accordingly, I must agree with Judge Motz that the)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(AIA bars this suit.)Tj
0 -26 TD
(DAVIS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:)Tj
0.8 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Today we are asked to rule on the constitutionality of core)Tj
0.71 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)Tj
1.52 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Appellants advance several arguments against the Act, chief)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(among them their claim that Congress exceeded its power)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(when it sought to require all individuals \(with narrow excep-)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(tions\) to obtain a certain minimum of health insurance cover-)Tj
4.87 Tw T*
(age starting in 2014. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
186.552 -243.1 Td
( )Tj
4.87 Tw (5000A. In particular,)Tj
1.32 Tw -186.552 -13.1 Td
(appellants urge that the Commerce Clause, which authorizes)Tj
3.15 Tw T*
(Congress "To regulate Commerce . . . among the several)Tj
0.49 Tw T*
(States," U.S. Const. art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.49 Tw (8, cl. 3, allows only regulation of)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(economic )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(activity)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(. Thus, they contend, Congress cannot regu-)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(late appellants' "decision not to purchase health insurance and)Tj
0.82 Tw T*
(to otherwise privately manage [their] own healthcare," which)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(they characterize as "inactivity in commerce," Appellants' Br.)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(1. They also contend that upholding the Act under the Com-)Tj
4.85 Tw T*
(merce Clause would "create an unconstitutional national)Tj
3.25 Tw T*
(police power that would threaten all aspects of American)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(life," )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 11, suggesting in particular that "Congress could)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular inter-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(vals" or that "everyone above a certain income threshold buy)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(a General Motors automobile," Appellants' Reply Br. 9 \(quot-)Tj
3.13 Tw T*
(ing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Dep't of Health and Human)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, ___, 2011 WL 285683, at *24)Tj
1 Tw T*
(\(N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub)Tj
1.76 Tw T*
(nom. Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___)Tj
3.14 Tw T*
(F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178 \(11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011\)\).)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(56)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
428 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.05 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(therefore outside the apportionment requirement. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
243.87 -8.4 Td
(See Knowl-)Tj
1.03 Tw -243.87 -12.4 Td
(ton)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 178 U.S. at 83 \(upholding a federal estate tax\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bromley)Tj
0.74 Tw 0 -12.4 TD
(v. McCaughn)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 280 U.S. 124, 138 \(1929\) \(upholding a federal)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(gift tax\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Mfrs. Nat'l Bank of Detroit)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 363)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(U.S. 194, 199 \(1960\) \(upholding a federal estate tax collected)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(on an insurance policy\). As the Supreme Court has explained,)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
("[a] tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax which Congress . . .)Tj
1.92 Tw T*
(undoubtedly may impose." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Tyler v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 281 U.S.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(497, 502 \(1930\).)Tj
3 Tw 12 -24.6 Td
(The individual and employer mandate exactions are not)Tj
0.73 Tw -12 -12.4 Td
(capitation taxes; nor are they direct taxes that must be appor-)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(tioned. Far from being imposed without regard to circum-)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(stance, they will be imposed only upon taxpayers who can)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(afford, but fail to maintain, health insurance, or upon employ-)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(ers who fail to provide adequate and affordable insurance. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.45 Tw T*
(26 U.S.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.45 Tw (4980H, 5000A. As taxes "laid upon the happen-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(ing of an event," the individual and employer mandate exac-)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(tions are clearly indirect. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Tyler)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 281 U.S. at 502. Nor are)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(they property taxes, since they will not be assessed based on)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the ownership of property.)Tj
0.22 Tw 12 -24.7 Td
(Indeed, the Supreme Court has so limited the application of)Tj
0.86 Tw -12 -12.4 Td
(the Direct Tax Clause that the Sixth Circuit concluded that it)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
("relates solely to taxation generally for the purpose of revenue)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(only, and not impositions made incidentally under the com-)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(merce clause exerted either directly or by delegation, as a)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(means of constraining and regulating what may be considered)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(by the Congress as pernicious or harmful to commerce." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Rod-)Tj
2.93 Tw T*
(gers v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 138 F.2d 992, 995 \(6th Cir. 1943\).)Tj
0.5 Tw 0 -12.5 TD
(Since the individual and employer mandate exactions are nei-)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(ther capitation nor property taxes, the Direct Tax Clause is)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(inapplicable, and the individual and employer mandate taxes)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(stand.)Tj
142.506 -24.7 Td
(III.)Tj
0.7 Tw -130.506 -24.7 Td
(In sum, I concur in Judge Motz's fine opinion holding that)Tj
0.75 Tw -12 -12.5 Td
(the AIA applies here. Our distinguished colleague vigorously)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(55)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
429 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.54 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(that "[n]o Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless)Tj
3 Tw 0 -13 TD
(in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(directed to be taken." U.S. Const. art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
202.044 -34.4 Td
( )Tj
0.48 Tw (9, cl. 4. This clause)Tj
3.84 Tw -202.044 -13 Td
(has its origins in the Constitutional Convention's slavery)Tj
2.36 Tw T*
(debates. The Northern states consented to count a slave as)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(three-fifths of a person for allocating representatives in Con-)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(gress in exchange for a corresponding increase in the tax lia-)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(bility of Southern states. Brian Galle, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(The Taxing Power, the)Tj
1.78 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Affordable Care Act, and the Limits of Constitutional Com-)Tj
3.92 Tw T*
(promise)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 120 Yale L.J. Online 407, 414 \(Apr. 5, 2011\),)Tj
6.66 Tw T*
(http://yalelawjournal.org/2011/4/5/galle.html. Even at that)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(time, the definition of "direct" tax was unclear. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Springer)Tj
3.34 Tw T*
(v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 102 U.S. 586, 596 \(1880\) \("It does not)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(appear that an attempt was made by any one to define the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(exact meaning of the language employed."\). )Tj
1.75 Tw 12 -26 Td
(It is therefore understandable that the Supreme Court has)Tj
2.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(demonstrated reluctance to strike a tax based solely on the)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(direct/indirect distinction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Knowlton v. Moore)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 178 U.S.)Tj
2.44 Tw T*
(41, 83 \(1900\) \("[I]t is no part of the duty of this court to)Tj
0 Tw T*
(lessen, impede, or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular)Tj
2 Tw T*
(nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(upon the differing theories of political economists than upon)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(the practical nature of the tax itself." \()Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(quoting Nicol v. Ames)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
4.78 Tw T*
(173 U.S. 509, 515 \(1899\)\). Indeed, the Supreme Court)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(restricted the meaning of "direct" taxes to capitation, or head)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(taxes, and taxes on the ownership of real property. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Springer)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(102 U.S. at 602; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Veazie Bank v. Fenno)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 75 U.S. \(8 Wall.\) 533,)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(544 \(1869\). Taxes on personal property have also been held)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(to be direct. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 158 U.S.)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(601, 637 \(1895\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(superseded on other grounds by constitu-)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(tional amendment)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, U.S. Const. amend. XVI, as recognized in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(Brushaber)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 240 U.S. 1. )Tj
0.74 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Supreme Court has never struck down a federal tax as)Tj
1.12 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(an unapportioned capitation tax. And the Supreme Court has)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(repeatedly upheld a variety of federal taxes as indirect and)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(54)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
430 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.4 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(sured in 2009 and that these costs were shifted onto insured)Tj
3.8 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(individuals, "increas[ing] family premiums by on average)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(over $1,000 a year." 42 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
157.74 -35.2 Td
( )Tj
0.2 Tw (18091\(a\)\(2\)\(F\). It also found)Tj
0.6 Tw -157.74 -13.4 Td
(that "[b]y significantly reducing the number of the uninsured,)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(the [individual mandate], together with the other provisions of)Tj
3.6 Tw T*
(th[e] Act, will lower health insurance premiums." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( By)Tj
4.11 Tw T*
(encouraging individuals to purchase health insurance and)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(employers to provide it, the individual and employer man-)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(dates alleviate the costs associated with providing uncompen-)Tj
5 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(sated care to the uninsured and lower health insurance)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(premiums. Such cost reductions and expansions in access to)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(health insurance surely constitute contributions to the general)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(welfare.)Tj
1.12 Tw 12 -26.5 Td
(Finally, neither the exaction in the individual mandate nor)Tj
1.85 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(that in the employer mandate infringes on other rights. The)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(exactions do not, for example, operate to impose duplicative)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(criminal penalties in violation of the prohibition against dou-)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(ble jeopardy. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Kurth Ranch)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 511 U.S. at 780-83 \("Taxes)Tj
3.11 Tw T*
(imposed upon illegal activities are fundamentally different)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(from taxes with a pure revenue-raising purpose that are)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(imposed )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(despite)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( their adverse effect on the taxed activity."\).)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(The provisions lack the punitive character of other measures)Tj
0.39 Tw T*
(the Supreme Court has held to be penalties. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.48 Tw T*
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 36. And the provisions do not appear to)Tj
-0.53 Tw T*
(violate any other rights: No one has a right to be free from taxa-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tion.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (8)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts 144.498 -26.4 Td
(C.)Tj
0.91 Tw -132.498 -26.4 Td
(It bears mention that the individual and employer mandate)Tj
1.83 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(exactions do not run afoul of the constitutional requirement)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.17 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(8)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Additionally, any contention that the individual mandate violates either\
)Tj
0.15 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(the First, Fifth, or Tenth Amendment is, in my opinion, meritless. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See post)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
1.09 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(at 105-109; )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Florida ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3519178, at *113-17 \(11th Cir. Aug. 12,)Tj
1 Tw T*
(2011\) \(Marcus, J., dissenting\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -432.85 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(53)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
431 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.21 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(related to raising revenue; 2\) serve the general welfare; and 3\))Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(do not infringe upon any other right. )Tj
0.33 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The individual and employer exactions are surely related to)Tj
1.61 Tw -12 -13 Td
(raising revenue. The Congressional Budget Office estimated)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(that the individual mandate exaction will generate approxi-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(mately $4 billion annually, and the employer mandate exac-)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(tion, $11 billion annually, by 2019. Letter from Douglas W.)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(Elmendorf, Dir., Cong. Budget Office, to Hon. Nancy Pelosi,)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, tbl. 4 \(Mar. 20,)Tj
11.53 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(2010\), )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
45.526 -138.5 Td
(available at)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/)Tj
2.07 Tw -45.526 -13.1 Td
(doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Patient Protection)Tj
0 Tw T*
(and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, \247 1563\(a\), 124)Tj
3.04 Tw T*
(Stat. 119, 270 \(stating that the Affordable Care Act "will)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(reduce the Federal deficit"\). Not only will the exactions raise)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(significant amounts of revenue, but the revenue raised can)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
(cover the "[h]igher government costs attributable to the unin-)Tj
2.79 Tw T*
(sured . . . implicitly paid for by the insured . . . through)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(increased taxes or reductions in other government services as)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(money is spent on the uninsured." Brief Amici Curiae of Eco-)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(nomic Scholars in Support of Defendants-Appellees at 13,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.25 Tw T*
(Liberty Univ. v. Geithner)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, No. 10-2347. In other words, as)Tj
2.35 Tw T*
(Judge Davis notes in his opinion, "[b]ecause the uninsured)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(effectively force the rest of the nation to insure them with)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(respect to basic, stabilizing care, this penalty is something like)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(a premium paid into the federal government, which bears a)Tj
2.02 Tw T*
(large share of the shifted costs as the largest insurer in the)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(nation." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Post )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(at 98. Clearly, then, the exactions bear "some)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(reasonable relation" to raising revenue. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Doremus)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 249 U.S. at)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(93. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See also Sonzinsky)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 300 U.S. at 514 \(upholding tax that)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(raised $5,400 in revenue\). )Tj
3.28 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Further, the individual and employer mandate exactions)Tj
1.12 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(serve the general welfare. The Affordable Care Act is aimed)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(at, among other things, reducing the number of the uninsured)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(as well as the cost of those who remain uninsured imposed on)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(those who are insured. Congress found that, nationwide, hos-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(pitals provided $43 billion in uncompensated care to the unin-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(52)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
432 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.91 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
6 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
4.91 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\). And the Secretary of the Treasury is)Tj
2.52 Tw -6 -13.3 Td
(empowered to enforce the provision like a tax, albeit with)Tj
0 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(several procedural exceptions.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (5)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247 5000A\(g\). The individual)Tj
3.38 Tw T*
(mandate exaction, codified in the Internal Revenue Code,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(therefore functions as a tax.)Tj
3.91 Tw 12 -26.3 Td
(Looking next at the employer mandate exaction in 26)Tj
3.37 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.37 Tw (4980H, it amends the Internal Revenue Code to)Tj
3.86 Tw T*
(impose an "assessable payment" on large employers if a)Tj
1.74 Tw T*
(health exchange notifies the employer that at least one full-)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(time employee obtains a premium tax credit or cost-sharing)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(reduction. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.85 Tw (4980H\(a\)-\(b\). The amount of the assessable)Tj
5.38 Tw T*
(payment is calculated differently based on whether the)Tj
3.38 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(employer offers adequate health insurance coverage to its)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
(employees. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.72 Tw (4980H\(a\)-\(c\). And instead of the term "pen-)Tj
1.48 Tw T*
(alty," the employer mandate uses the terms "assessable pay-)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(ment" and "tax." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.57 Tw (4980H\(b\). Like the individual mandate)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(exaction, the practical operation of this provision is as a tax)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(that is assessed and collected in the same manner as other)Tj
6.42 Tw T*
(Internal Revenue Code penalties treated as taxes.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (6)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (4980H\(d\).)Tj
1.95 Tw 12 -26.3 Td
(Having concluded that the individual and employer man-)Tj
0.88 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(dates operate as taxes,)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (7)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( to determine whether they are consti-)Tj
3.62 Tw T*
(tutional, I must consider whether they: 1\) are reasonably)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.11 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(5)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The fact that Congress considered it necessary to exempt the individual)Tj
2.5 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(mandate exaction from some traditional tax collection procedures like)Tj
0.74 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(criminal liability and liens evidences that the exaction is a tax. 26 U.\
S.C.)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.75 Tw (5000A\(g\)\(2\). Otherwise, there would be no need to except the exactio\
n)Tj
2.34 Tw T*
(from some of the standard tax collection procedures, which otherwise)Tj
1 Tw T*
(apply. )Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.33 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14 Td
(6)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (No exceptions to the standard collection procedures exist in the case)Tj
1 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(of the employer mandate. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (4980H\(d\). )Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.44 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14 Td
(7)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Since the Supreme Court long ago established that Congress did not)Tj
0.95 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(have to invoke the word "tax" to act within its taxing power, Congress's\
)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(use of other verbiage in portions of the individual and employer mandate\
s,)Tj
1.82 Tw T*
(and most notably in the "penalty" provision of the individual mandate,)Tj
1 Tw T*
(sheds little light on Congressional intent. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See Nelson)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 312 U.S. at 363. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -337.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(51)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
433 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.17 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(dates. I would conclude, after examining their practical opera-)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(tion, that these provisions impose taxes.)Tj
1.28 Tw 12 -26.5 Td
(The individual mandate exaction in 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
250.28 -48.3 Td
( )Tj
1.28 Tw (5000A\(b\))Tj
2.85 Tw -250.28 -13.4 Td
(amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide that a non-)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(exempted individual who fails to maintain a minimum level)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(of insurance must pay a "penalty." Notably, while the individ-)Tj
2.46 Tw T*
(ual mandate in some places uses the term "penalty," some)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(form of the word "tax" appears in the statute over forty times.)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.91 Tw (5000A. For example, it references taxpayers and)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(their returns, includes amounts due under the provision in the)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(taxpayer's tax return liability, calculates the penalty by refer-)Tj
2.14 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(ence to household income for tax purposes, and allows the)Tj
1.37 Tw T*
(Secretary of the Treasury to enforce the provision like other)Tj
6 Tw T*
(taxes \(with several procedural exceptions\). )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Yet, as)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(explained above, the label applied to an exaction is irrelevant;)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(instead, in assessing an exaction's constitutionality, we look)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(to its practical operation. )Tj
0.32 Tw 12 -26.4 Td
(The practical operation of the individual mandate provision)Tj
0.25 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(is as a tax. Individuals who are not required to file income tax)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(returns are not required to pay the penalty. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.55 Tw (5000A\(e\)\(2\).)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(The amount of any penalty owed is generally calculated by)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(reference to household income and reported on an individu-)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(al's federal income tax return. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.62 Tw (5000A\(b\)-\(c\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (4)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Taxpayers)Tj
8.25 Tw T*
(filing jointly are jointly liable for the penalty. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.7 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(4)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The statute prescribes monthly penalties in an amount calculated by)Tj
0.76 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(identifying a specified "percentage of the excess of the taxpayer's hous\
e-)Tj
0.83 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(hold income for the taxable year over the amount of gross income speci-)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(fied in section 6012\(a\)\(1\)" unless that calculation produces an amou\
nt that)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(is less than certain statutorily defined thresholds. 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.03 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(2\).)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(Ultimately, the penalty owed by a taxpayer is equal to the lesser of eit\
her)Tj
0.79 Tw T*
(the sum of the monthly penalties owed by the taxpayer or the cost of the\
)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
("national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze\
)Tj
4.2 Tw T*
(level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in)Tj
3.54 Tw T*
(the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
1 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(1\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -353.35 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(50)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
434 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.22 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(There are essentially three features that a tax must exhibit)Tj
0.87 Tw -12 -13 Td
(to be constitutional. First, to pass constitutional muster, a tax)Tj
4.12 Tw 0 -13 TD
(must bear "some reasonable relation" to raising revenue.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.07 Tw T*
(Doremus)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
43.992 -47.4 Td
(, 249 U.S. at 93. The amount of revenue raised is)Tj
1.58 Tw -43.992 -13.1 Td
(irrelevant: A tax does not cease to be one "even though the)Tj
0.96 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(revenue obtained is obviously negligible, or the revenue pur-)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(pose of the tax may be secondary." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Sanchez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 340 U.S. at 44)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(\(citations omitted\). Instead, the measure must simply be "pro-)Tj
5.38 Tw T*
(ductive of some revenue." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Sonzinsky)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 300 U.S. at 514)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(\(upholding tax that raised $5,400 in revenue in 1934\).)Tj
0.66 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Second, to be constitutional, a tax must be imposed for the)Tj
2.5 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(general welfare. Congress enjoys wide discretion regarding)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(what is in the general welfare. "The discretion . . . is not con-)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(fided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless)Tj
1 Tw T*
(the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(an exercise of judgment." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helvering)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 301 U.S. at 640. There-)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(fore, in determining whether a congressional enactment fur-)Tj
0.35 Tw T*
(thers the general welfare, "courts should defer substantially to)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(the judgment of Congress." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(South Dakota v. Dole)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 483 U.S.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(203, 207 \(1987\). )Tj
1.47 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Finally, even if an exaction is rationally related to raising)Tj
0.67 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(revenue and furthers the general welfare, to be constitutional,)Tj
3.11 Tw T*
(it must not infringe upon another constitutional right. For)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(example, a tax may not infringe on an individual's right to be)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(free from double jeopardy by further punishing criminal con-)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(duct. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Dep't of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 511)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(U.S. 767, 780-83 \(1994\) \(concluding that a drug tax was actu-)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(ally a criminal penalty based on its high rate, its deterrent pur-)Tj
2.88 Tw T*
(pose, and a criminal prohibition on the taxed activity and)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(holding that the tax consequently violated the Double Jeop-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment\).)Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
0.36 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(Turning now to the case at hand, the provisions at issue are)Tj
1.32 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(the exaction provisions in the individual and employer man-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(49)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
435 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.88 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the same time. Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.88 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(Sonzinsky)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
47.328 -21.9 Td
(, "[e]very tax is in some measure regulatory. To)Tj
3.32 Tw -47.328 -13.5 Td
(some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(activity taxed as compared with others not taxed. But a tax is)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect . . . .")Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(300 U.S. at 513. And "[i]n like manner every rebate from a)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(tax when conditioned upon conduct is in some measure a)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(temptation. But to hold that motive or temptation is equiva-)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(lent to coercion is to plunge the law in endless difficulties.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.1 Tw T*
(Chas. C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 301 U.S. 548, 589-90)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(\(1937\). Accordingly, in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones University v. Simon)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(U.S. 725 \(1974\), the Supreme Court recognized that, while in)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(some early cases it "drew what it saw at the time as distinc-)Tj
5.01 Tw T*
(tions between regulatory and revenue-raising taxes," the)Tj
1.02 Tw T*
(Court "subsequently abandoned such distinctions." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 741)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(n.12, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(overruled in part on other grounds by South Carolina)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(v. Ragan)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. 367, 379 \(1984\).)Tj
0.11 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Courts, therefore, do not look to labels, regulatory intent, or)Tj
2.24 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(regulatory effect. Instead, we must consider whether some-)Tj
2.33 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(thing that operates as a tax is authorized under Congress's)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(taxing power, which has been described as "very extensive,")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.04 Tw T*
(License Tax Cases)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 72 U.S. at 471, and indeed "virtually with-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(out limitation." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Ptasynski)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 462 U.S. 74, 79)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(\(1983\). As Justice Cardozo recognized in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helvering)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
0.47 Tw 22 -26.7 Td
(The discretion [to tax and spend for the general wel-)Tj
4.85 Tw T*
(fare] belongs to Congress, unless the choice is)Tj
1 Tw T*
(clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, [or] not)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.)Tj
0.48 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
("When such a contention comes here we naturally)Tj
1.65 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(require a showing that by no reasonable possibility)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(can the challenged legislation fall within the wide)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(range of discretion permitted to the Congress.")Tj
-22 -26.7 Td
(301 U.S. at 640-41 \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Butler)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 297 U.S. at 67\). )Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(48)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
436 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.35 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Further, a tax\320regardless of its label\320"does not cease to)Tj
0.18 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even def-)Tj
1.6 Tw 0 -12.7 TD
(initely deters the activities taxed." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
174.212 -33.8 Td
(United States v. Sanchez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.59 Tw -174.212 -12.7 Td
(340 U.S. 42, 44 \(1950\). As long as a statute is "productive of)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(some revenue," Congress may exercise its taxing power with-)Tj
2.82 Tw T*
(out "collateral inquiry as to the measure of the regulatory)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(effect [of the statute in question]." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Sonzinsky v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(300 U.S. 506, 514 \(1937\). And if "the legislation enacted has)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(some reasonable relation to the exercise of the taxing author-)Tj
3.12 Tw T*
(ity conferred by the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated)Tj
2.01 Tw T*
(because of the supposed motives which induced it." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(States v. Doremus)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 249 U.S. 86, 93 \(1919\).)Tj
0.53 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(I recognize that some cases from the 1920s and 1930s sug-)Tj
2.58 Tw -12 -12.7 Td
(gest that taxes are either regulatory or revenue-raising and)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(that the former are unconstitutional. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. Drexel)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(Furniture Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. 20, 37-44 \(1922\) \(holding that a tax)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(on goods made by child labor was an unconstitutional pen-)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(alty\). However, both older and newer opinions indicate that)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(the revenue-versus-regulatory distinction was short-lived and)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(is now defunct. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Kahriger)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 345 U.S.)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(22, 28 \(1953\) \(upholding tax on bookmakers and stating, "It)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(is conceded that a federal excise tax does not cease to be valid)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(merely because it discourages or deters the activities taxed."\),)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
4 Tw T*
(overruled in part on other grounds)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Marchetti v. United)Tj
0.73 Tw 0 -12.8 TD
(States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 390 U.S. 39 \(1968\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Sonzinsky)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 300 U.S. at 514 \(1937)Tj
2.08 Tw T*
(case upholding a tax on firearm dealers despite registration)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(provision and alleged regulatory effects\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Doremus)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 249 U.S.)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(at 95 \(1919 case upholding the Narcotic Drugs Act, which)Tj
2.96 Tw T*
(taxed and regulated sales of narcotics\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(McCray v. United)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 195 U.S. 27, 59 \(1904\) \(upholding tax on colored mar-)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(garine and stating, "Since . . . the taxing power conferred by)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(the Constitution knows no limits except those expressly stated)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(in that instrument, it must follow, if a tax be within the lawful)Tj
3.92 Tw T*
(power, the exertion of that power may not be judicially)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(restrained because of the results to arise from its exercise."\).)Tj
0.03 Tw 12 -25.3 Td
(It is not surprising that this distinction did not endure, given)Tj
1.07 Tw -12 -12.8 Td
(that taxes can, and do, both regulate and generate revenue at)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(47)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
437 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.24 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Before analyzing whether the exactions in question were)Tj
0.66 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(authorized under Congress's taxing power, it is useful first to)Tj
0.25 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(clarify that neither an exaction's label nor its regulatory intent)Tj
2 Tw T*
(or effect is germane to the constitutional inquiry. To deter-)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(mine whether an exaction constitutes a tax, the Supreme)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(Court has instructed us to look not at what an exaction is cal-)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(led but instead at what it does. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
159.646 -88.2 Td
(Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck &)Tj
0.67 Tw -159.646 -13.3 Td
(Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 312 U.S. 359, 363 \(1941\) \(stating that when "passing on)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(the constitutionality of a tax law," a court is "`concerned only)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise)Tj
3.56 Tw T*
(form of descriptive words which may be applied to it'"\))Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(\(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lawrence v. State Tax Comm'n)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 286 U.S. 276, 280)Tj
0.5 Tw T*
(\(1932\)\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also United States v. New York)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 315 U.S. at 515-)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(16 \(stating that an exaction meeting the definition of a tax will)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(be construed as such regardless of "whatever name it may be)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(called"\). This makes sense, given that the Constitution itself)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(uses four different terms to refer to the concept of taxation:)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(taxes, imposts, duties, and excises. U.S. Const. art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.06 Tw (8, cl.)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(1.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (3)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.16 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.3 Td
(Accordingly, the Supreme Court has characterized legisla-)Tj
0.77 Tw -12 -13.2 Td
(tive acts as "taxes" without regard to the labels used by Con-)Tj
2.13 Tw T*
(gress. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Sotelo)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 436 U.S. 268, 275)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(\(1978\) \(deeming an exaction labeled a "penalty" in the Inter-)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(nal Revenue Code a tax for bankruptcy purposes\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(License)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(Tax Cases)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 72 U.S. \(5 Wall.\) 462, 470-71 \(1866\) \(sustaining)Tj
2.48 Tw T*
(under the taxing power a federal statute requiring the pur-)Tj
1.44 Tw T*
(chase of a license before engaging in certain businesses and)Tj
0.54 Tw T*
(stating that "the granting of a license . . . must be regarded as)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(nothing more than a mere form of imposing a tax"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 99 F.3d 573, 583 \(4th Cir.)Tj
2.86 Tw T*
(1996\) \(holding that, for purposes of the AIA, "premiums")Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(constituted taxes\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(3)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Congress also does not have to invoke the source of authority for its)Tj
0.4 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(enactments. "The question of the constitutionality of action taken by Co\
n-)Tj
0.06 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(gress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to ex\
er-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(cise." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 333 U.S. 138, 144 \(1948\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -444.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(46)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
438 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
3 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(my conclusion that the mandates are \(constitutional\) taxes)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.7 TD
(inevitably leads back to the AIA's bar to this case.)Tj
144.504 -27.2 Td
(II.)Tj
-0.336 -27.1 Td
(A.)Tj
0.72 Tw -132.168 -27.1 Td
(Plaintiffs contend that "[t]he Taxing and Spending or Gen-)Tj
0.33 Tw -12 -13.7 Td
(eral Welfare Clause does not vest Congress with the authority)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(to enact the mandates." Opening Brief of Appellants Liberty)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(University, Michele G. Waddell and Joanne J. Merrill at 40,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 Tw T*
(Liberty Univ. v. Geithner)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
123.984 -158.3 Td
(, No. 10-2347. I disagree. The indi-)Tj
2.66 Tw -123.984 -13.7 Td
(vidual and employer mandate provisions are independently)Tj
3.05 Tw T*
(authorized by Congress's constitutional power to "lay and)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the United States . . . ." U.S. Const. art. I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (8, cl. 1. )Tj
2.24 Tw 12 -27.1 Td
("A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as)Tj
0.81 Tw -12 -13.7 Td
(used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(of the government." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Butler)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 297 U.S. 1, 61)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(\(1936\). Stated differently, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(upon individuals or property for the purpose of supporting the)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(government." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. New York)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 315 U.S. 510, 515-)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(16 \(1942\) \(quoting )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(New Jersey v. Anderson)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 203 U.S. 483,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(492 \(1906\)\).)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0.79 Tw 0 -26.9 TD
(ring opinions of Justices Brennan and Stevens, in which I join. But I ca\
n)Tj
0.78 Tw 0 -11.6 TD
(find no basis for the District Court's unwarranted assumption of jurisdi\
c-)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(tion over the subject matter of this lawsuit, and upon that ground alone\
I)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(would reverse the decision below."\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Veterans for Common Sense v. Shin-)Tj
1.16 Tw 0 -11.5 TD
(seki)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 644 F.3d 845, 900 \(9th Cir. 2011\) \(Kozinski, J., dissenting\) \(det\
er-)Tj
1.72 Tw T*
(mining that court lacked jurisdiction but also analyzing claims on their\
)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(merits\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Patel v. Holder)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 563 F.3d 565, 569 \(7th Cir. 2009\) \(majority opin-)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(ion doing same\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(cf. Helvering v. Davis)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 301 U.S. 619, 639-40 \(1937\) \(not-)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(ing the belief of Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, Stone, and Roberts that th\
e)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(case should be dismissed but nevertheless reaching the merits in an opin\
-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(ion authored by Justice Cardozo\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -361.95 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(45)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
439 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.3 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(For all these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district)Tj
0.77 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(court and remand the case to that court to dismiss for lack of)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(subject-matter jurisdiction.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
150.276 -26.8 Td
(VACATED AND REMANDED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
-150.276 -26.8 Td
(WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring:)Tj
146.502 -26.8 Td
(I.)Tj
0 Tw -134.502 -26.8 Td
(I concur in Judge Motz's fine opinion holding that the Anti-)Tj
2.1 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(Injunction Act applies to this case. I therefore agree that it)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(should be remanded to the district court for dismissal. )Tj
0.2 Tw 12 -26.8 Td
(I note that my distinguished colleague, after vigorously dis-)Tj
3.28 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(senting from the majority's holding that the AIA applies,)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(chose to exercise his prerogative to address the merits.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
264.012 -223.4 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( While)Tj
1.53 Tw -264.012 -13.5 Td
(I think that his position on the Commerce Clause is persua-)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(sive, were I to reach the merits, I would uphold the constitu-)Tj
5.22 Tw T*
(tionality of the Affordable Care Act on the basis that)Tj
5.07 Tw T*
(Congress had the authority to enact the individual and)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(employer mandates under its plenary taxing power.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (2)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( However,)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.58 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.5 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The majority opinion vacates the district court's decision and remands)Tj
0.73 Tw -10 -11.5 Td
(plaintiffs' lawsuit for dismissal. Judge Davis dissents from the majorit\
y's)Tj
1.39 Tw 0 -11.5 TD
(dismissal of plaintiffs' suit on AIA grounds; nonetheless, on the merits\
,)Tj
1 Tw T*
(he, too, would dismiss plaintiffs' lawsuit. )Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.83 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14.3 Td
(2)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Justices and judges have previously spoken on the merits after stating)Tj
0.78 Tw -10 -11.5 Td
(that the court lacked jurisdiction; my approach today is therefore nothi\
ng)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(new. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 130 S. Ct. 1758,)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(1777 \(2010\) \(Ginsburg, J., dissenting\) \("The Court errs in addressi\
ng an)Tj
1.72 Tw T*
(issue not ripe for judicial review . . . . I would dismiss the petition \
as)Tj
0.97 Tw 0 -11.4 TD
(improvidently granted. Were I to reach the merits, I would adhere to the\
)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(strict limitations the Federal Arbitration Act \(FAA\), 9 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.85 Tw (1 et seq.,)Tj
1.39 Tw T*
(places on judicial review of arbitral awards. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.39 Tw (10. Accordingly, I would)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(affirm the judgment of the Second Circuit, which rejected petitioners' p\
lea)Tj
1.32 Tw T*
(for vacation of the arbitrators' decision."\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(,)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(481 U.S. 1, 23 \(1987\) \(Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment\) \("\
Were)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(I to reach the merits I would reverse for the reasons stated in the conc\
ur-)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -302.85 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(44)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
440 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.09 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(retary. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
34.074 -8.4 Td
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( It is difficult to see how any irreparable injury justi-)Tj
1.96 Tw -34.074 -13 Td
(fies the injunctive relief requested here. But even assuming)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(equity jurisdiction does exist here, plaintiffs cannot meet the)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(stringent standard of proving with certainty that the Secretary)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(has "no chance of success on the merits." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(at 745.)Tj
0.25 Tw 12 -26 Td
(In rejecting the university's contention that it would prevail)Tj
2.3 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(on the merits, the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court explained that the sole)Tj
1.4 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(case in which a plaintiff had met this exacting standard was)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 Tw T*
(Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 284 U.S. 498 \(1932\).)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(That case is a far cry from the case at hand. In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Standard Nut)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.09 Tw T*
(a tax collector attempted to assess a tax that federal courts had)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(already held in a proper )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(post-enforcement)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( action did not apply)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(to the plaintiff's product. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 510. By contrast, to date, no)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(court has even considered the validity of the individual man-)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(date in a )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(post-enforcement)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( action, let alone held it invalid in)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(such a proceeding. Moreover, in pre-enforcement actions, the)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(courts of appeals have divided as to the constitutionality of)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(the individual mandate. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Compare Florida v. HHS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d)Tj
3.51 Tw T*
(___ \(11th Cir. 2011\) \(invalidating mandate\) )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(with Thomas)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d ___ \(upholding mandate\). Given this history)Tj
1.16 Tw T*
(and the presumption of constitutionality a federal court must)Tj
2.81 Tw T*
(afford every congressional enactment, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see United States v.)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(Morrison)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 529 U.S. 598, 607 \(2000\), we can hardly hold that)Tj
1.39 Tw T*
(the Secretary has "no chance of success on the merits." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 745.)Tj
144.168 -26 Td
(V.)Tj
2.65 Tw -132.168 -26 Td
(In closing, we recognize "that Congress has imposed" a)Tj
3.31 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(potentially "harsh regime" on some taxpayers. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 749.)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(However, as in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the question of whether these con-)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(cerns "merit consideration" is a matter for Congress to weigh.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.63 Tw T*
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 750. Unless and until Congress tells us otherwise, we)Tj
0.84 Tw T*
(must respect the AIA's bar to the "intrusion of the injunctive)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(power of the courts into the administration of the revenue.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(Regan)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. at 388 \(O'Connor, J., concurring\).)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(43)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
441 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.47 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(For in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
46.944 -8.4 Td
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Supreme Court not only reaffirmed)Tj
2.33 Tw -46.944 -13.4 Td
(the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases as setting forth the proper course by)Tj
5.08 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(which a taxpayer could challenge an exaction but also)Tj
2.02 Tw T*
(explained that it had "abandoned . . . distinctions" between)Tj
1.86 Tw T*
("regulatory and revenue-raising taxes." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 741 n.12. The)Tj
3.33 Tw T*
(Court held that the AIA bar applied even to an exaction)Tj
1.07 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(implementing a social policy unless a plaintiff could demon-)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(strate that the IRS "has no legal basis" in the Code for assess-)Tj
4.15 Tw T*
(ing the exaction or seeks an objective "unrelated to the)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(protection of the revenues." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 740. Plaintiffs cannot and)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(do not make any contention that the IRS has "no legal basis")Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(in the Code for assessing the penalty in \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.14 Tw (5000A or that this)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(exaction is "unrelated to the protection of the revenues.")Tj
0.77 Tw 12 -26.5 Td
(In sum, we find plaintiffs' argument that the AIA does not)Tj
1.2 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(apply here wholly unpersuasive.)Tj
144.498 -26.5 Td
(B.)Tj
1.5 Tw -132.498 -26.4 Td
(Perhaps recognizing the weakness of their argument as to)Tj
1.8 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(the inapplicability of the AIA, plaintiffs principally contend)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(that a narrow judicially-created exception to the AIA permits)Tj
2.04 Tw T*
(pursuit of their action seeking a pre-enforcement injunction)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(against enforcement of the individual mandate.)Tj
1.4 Tw 12 -26.4 Td
(That exception allows a plaintiff to escape the AIA bar if)Tj
1.51 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(he demonstrates that \(1\) equity jurisdiction otherwise exists,)Tj
1.17 Tw T*
(i.e. irreparable injury results if no injunction issues, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(and)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( that)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(\(2\) "it is clear that under no circumstances could the [Secre-)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(tary] ultimately prevail." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Williams Packing)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 370 U.S. at 7.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (15)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.71 Tw 0 Ts T*
(When making the latter determination, a court must take "the)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(most liberal view of the law and the facts" in favor of the Sec-)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.5 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.2 Td
(15)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts ( The Court has carved out one other exception to the AIA for "ag-)Tj
0.56 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(grieved parties for whom [Congress] has not provided an alternative rem-\
)Tj
1.02 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(edy." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See Regan)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 465 U.S. at 378. That exception clearly does not assist)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(plaintiffs because, as the Secretary concedes, they may challenge the in\
di-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(vidual mandate in a refund action. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 746. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -432.45 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(42)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
442 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.03 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Plaintiffs' remaining contention as to why the AIA does not)Tj
0.13 Tw -12 -14 Td
(bar their challenge to the individual mandate is that it imposes)Tj
1.54 Tw 0 -14 TD
(an unconstitutional regulatory penalty "not designed to raise)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(revenue," which assertedly violates the Commerce Clause, the)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(Taxing and Spending Clause, and unspecified "other constitu-)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(tional rights." The problem with this argument is that a claim)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(that an exaction is an unconstitutional regulatory penalty does)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(not insulate a challenge to it from the AIA bar. Again, in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
280.572 -106.4 Td
(Bob)Tj
1.3 Tw -280.572 -14 Td
(Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court confronted and rejected precisely this argu-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ment.)Tj
2.21 Tw 12 -27.8 Td
(Like plaintiffs here, the university in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( asserted)Tj
0.25 Tw -12 -14 Td
(that the IRS's "threatened action" would "violate [its constitu-)Tj
2.07 Tw T*
(tional] rights." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 736 \(asserting various First and Four-)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(teenth Amendment rights\). In fact, in its brief to the Supreme)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(Court, the university made an argument identical to that here.)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(The university maintained that "what the government would)Tj
1.88 Tw T*
(have the University do . . . involves not revenue but rather)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(unconstitutional compulsion," Brief for Petitioner at 28, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(Jones Univ. v. Simon)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. 725 \(1973\) \(No. 72-1470\),)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(1973 WL 172321. This mirrors the plaintiffs' contention here)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(that the mandate is "not designed to raise revenue" but instead)Tj
0.17 Tw T*
(to unconstitutionally "compel[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.17 Tw (]" specific behavior. Just as the)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.33 Tw T*
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court held the university's argument foreclosed by)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 416 U.S. at 740-41, we must hold)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(plaintiffs' identical argument foreclosed by those cases.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
2.94 Tw 0 -27.5 TD
(this argument. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dep't of Health &)Tj
0.74 Tw 0 -11.9 TD
(Human Servs.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 695 \(M.D. Pa. 2011\); )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Thomas More)Tj
0.76 Tw 0 -11.8 TD
(Law Center v. Obama)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 720 F. Supp. 2d 882, 891 \(E.D. Mich. 2010\). But)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(invalidation of the individual mandate would necessarily preclude the Se\
c-)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(retary from exercising his statutory authority to assess the accompanyin\
g)Tj
1.64 Tw T*
(penalty. Moreover, in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, the Court held that the AIA barred a)Tj
1.73 Tw T*
(challenge to the IRS's interpretation of I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.73 Tw (501\(c\)\(3\), even though)Tj
2.44 Tw T*
(that provision itself did not impose any tax; only when coupled with)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.37 Tw (501\(a\) \(making a 501\(c\)\(3\) organization exempt from income taxes\)\
did)Tj
1 Tw T*
(tax consequences result. 416 U.S. at 738. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -370.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(41)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
443 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.78 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Secretary's present litigation position, it can craft a specific)Tj
1.18 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(AIA exception for constitutional challenges to the individual)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(mandate. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
47.706 -35 Td
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.05 Tw (7428\(a\) \(inserting, after )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, an)Tj
0.42 Tw -47.706 -13.3 Td
(exemption for the exact sort of pre-enforcement challenge the)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.45 Tw T*
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court had held barred by the AIA\). Until it does)Tj
1.4 Tw T*
(so, however, we are bound by its directive that we entertain)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("no suit" restraining the assessment of "any tax." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (7421\(a\).)Tj
142.17 -26.4 Td
(IV.)Tj
1.14 Tw -130.17 -26.4 Td
(Having dispensed with the Secretary's arguments, we turn)Tj
1.2 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(finally to the arguments pressed by plaintiffs.)Tj
144.168 -26.3 Td
(A.)Tj
0.92 Tw -132.168 -26.3 Td
(Plaintiffs initially contend that the AIA bar does not apply)Tj
0.71 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(because this "case does not seek to restrain the assessment or)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(collection of a tax." The plaintiff university in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( ten-)Tj
1.65 Tw T*
(dered precisely the same initial argument. Its "first" conten-)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(tion was that the AIA did not apply because its suit was not)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(brought "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or col-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(lection of any tax." 416 U.S. at 738. The Supreme Court held)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(that the university's complaint "belie[d] [this] notion." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( So)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(it is here. For, in their complaint, plaintiffs characterize the)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(individual mandate as a "tax" and ask for a judicial invalida-)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(tion of this "tax[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.14 Tw (] upon citizens who choose not to purchase)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(something such as health insurance." They assert that the indi-)Tj
1.68 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(vidual mandate provision, although labeled a "penalty," is a)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
("tax" not apportioned as required by Article I of the Constitu-)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(tion, and a "tax" beyond the scope of congressional power)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(under the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, as)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, plaintiffs' complaint belies their initial conten-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tion.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (14)Tj
1.42 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(14)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Moreover, )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( forecloses an argument that the AIA allows a)Tj
1.97 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(challenge to the requirement that an individual maintain insurance, i.e.\
)Tj
1.33 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.33 Tw (5000A\(a\), separate from a challenge to the penalty for noncompliance)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(with this requirement, i.e. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.48 Tw (5000A\(b\). Some district courts have accepted)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -444.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(40)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
444 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.36 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(remain uninsured in 2014 and thus potentially subject to the)Tj
3.53 Tw 0 -13 TD
(challenged "penalty." Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf,)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(CBO Director, to Hon. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader,)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(at table 4 \(Dec. 19, 2009\). To exempt the individual mandate)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(from the AIA would invite millions of taxpayers\320each and)Tj
2.87 Tw T*
(every year\320to refuse to pay the \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
180.504 -73.4 Td
( )Tj
2.87 Tw (5000A\(b\) exaction and)Tj
1.2 Tw -180.504 -13 Td
(instead preemptively challenge the IRS's assessment.)Tj
1.52 Tw 12 -25.9 Td
(Moreover, some of those taxpayers will undoubtedly pos-)Tj
3.22 Tw -12 -13 Td
(sess a host of non-constitutional, individual grounds upon)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(which to challenge the assessment of the \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.12 Tw (5000A\(b\) exac-)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(tion. As former IRS Commissioners warned in a recent brief,)Tj
2.61 Tw T*
(allowing these suits would severely hamper IRS collection)Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(efforts. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Brief for Mortimer Caplin & Sheldon Cohen as)Tj
2.71 Tw T*
(Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees at 12-15, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Seven-Sky v.)Tj
2.44 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(Holder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, No. 11-5047 \(D.C. Cir. July 1, 2011\). This would)Tj
1.51 Tw T*
(threaten to interrupt the IRS's collection of $4 billion annu-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(ally from the challenged exaction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Letter from Elmendorf)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(to Reid at table 4. Moreover, those challenges could impede)Tj
6.71 Tw T*
(the collection of other income taxes by preemptively)Tj
7.21 Tw T*
(resolving\320in litigation over the exaction imposed by)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.07 Tw (5000A\(b\)\320issues basic to all tax collection, such as a tax-)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(payer's adjusted gross income.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (13)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.38 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(2\)\(B\);)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.07 Tw T*
(C.I.R. v. Sunnen)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 333 U.S. 591, 597-98 \(1948\) \(issue preclu-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(sion "applicable in the federal income tax field"\).)Tj
1.85 Tw 12 -25.9 Td
(Thus, while the Secretary and the dissent may be correct)Tj
0.67 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(that we could resolve this one lawsuit with few adverse reve-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(nue consequences, the holding necessary to reach the merits)Tj
1.74 Tw T*
(here could, in the long-run, wreak havoc on the Secretary's)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(ability to collect revenue. If Congress is persuaded by the)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
2.11 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.8 Td
(13)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Other issues raised by the individual mandate that are common to)Tj
10.04 Tw -10 -11.1 Td
(many taxes include certain deductions from income taxes)Tj
25.26 Tw 0 -11.1 TD
(\(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
25.26 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(4\)\(C\)\(i\)\), child dependency determinations)Tj
3.15 Tw T*
(\(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.15 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(A\)\), joint liability for spouses \(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.15 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\)\), the)Tj
8.42 Tw T*
(income level triggering a taxpayer's duty to file a return)Tj
10.36 Tw T*
(\(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
10.36 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(2\)\(B\)\), and family size for deduction purposes)Tj
1 Tw T*
(\(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(4\)\(A\)\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -411.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(39)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
445 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.53 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(from AIA\). But Congress has provided so such exemption)Tj
2.71 Tw 0 -13 TD
(here. Alternatively, Congress could have crafted a specific)Tj
2.57 Tw T*
(route to pre-enforcement judicial review. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
212.794 -34.4 Td
(See Sigmon Coal)Tj
0.21 Tw -212.794 -13 Td
(Co. v. Apfel,)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( 226 F.3d 291, 301 \(4th Cir. 2000\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Clin-)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(ton v. City of New York)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 524 U.S. 417, 428-29 \(1998\). Again,)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(it did not do so here. Thus, Congress knows how to exempt)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(a specific exaction from the AIA bar, and that it did not do)Tj
3.47 Tw T*
(so here strongly undermines the contention that Congress)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(intended such an exemption.)Tj
0.53 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Nor do the Secretary's policy arguments, which the dissent)Tj
2.16 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(embraces, demonstrate that the AIA should not apply here.)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(The Secretary contends that "it makes sense that Congress)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(would regard it as unnecessary to apply the AIA bar" to the)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(individual mandate because, in the mandate, Congress prohib-)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(ited the Secretary from using his "principal tools" to "collect)Tj
5.05 Tw T*
(unpaid taxes." Maybe so. But the Secretary's argument)Tj
3.81 Tw T*
(ignores the fact that the AIA bars challenges seeking to)Tj
3.77 Tw T*
(restrain the "assessment )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(or)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( collection of any tax." I.R.C.)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.71 Tw (7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). Congress's intent to waive )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(some)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.8 Tw T*
(of the Secretary's )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(collection)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( tools does not in any way evi-)Tj
0.41 Tw T*
(dence that it would want to invite pre-enforcement challenges)Tj
2.03 Tw T*
(to the Secretary's remaining collection powers or all of his)Tj
3.37 Tw T*
(assessment authority. And the Supreme Court has left no)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(doubt that restraining even "one method of collection" trig-)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(gers the AIA's prohibition on injunctive suits. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(v. Am. Friends Serv. Comm.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 419 U.S. 7, 10 \(1974\).)Tj
0.1 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Alternatively, the Secretary argues that because the individ-)Tj
3.72 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ual mandate "is `integral' to the [Affordable Care Act's])Tj
0.63 Tw T*
(guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions" and has a)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
("delayed . . . effective date," Congress would have "wanted")Tj
2.37 Tw T*
(early resolution of challenges to it and "did not intend the)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(AIA to prohibit pre-enforcement challenges." This argument)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(ignores that any holding that the AIA bar does not apply to)Tj
1.67 Tw T*
(the individual mandate might have serious long-term conse-)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(quences for the Secretary's revenue collection. The Congres-)Tj
3.57 Tw T*
(sional Budget Office projects that 34 million people will)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(38)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
446 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.33 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Even taken on their own terms, however, the proffered pol-)Tj
1.47 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(icy arguments fail. Neither the Secretary nor the dissent has)Tj
1.08 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(identified any persuasive evidence that the 2010 Congress in)Tj
3.57 Tw T*
(fact intended to permit pre-enforcement challenges to the)Tj
3.04 Tw T*
(individual mandate.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
98.368 -62 Td
(12)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( The best evidence of what Congress)Tj
1.18 Tw -98.368 -13.4 Td
(intended, of course, is the legislation it actually enacted. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(See)Tj
1.81 Tw T*
(Carcieri v. Salazar)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 129 S. Ct. 1058, 1066-67 \(2009\). Con-)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(gress could have enacted an exemption from the AIA bar; it)Tj
4.21 Tw T*
(did so in other instances. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, I.R.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.21 Tw (4961\(c\)\(1\))Tj
5.4 Tw T*
(\(second-tier tax exempt from AIA\), 6703\(c\)\(1\) \(penalty)Tj
5.38 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(exempt from AIA upon satisfying statutory conditions\),)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(7421\(a\) \(listing several exactions and procedures exempt)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.03 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.3 Td
(12)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The Secretary offers only congressional floor statements as evidence)Tj
1.51 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(of this supposed congressional intent. In those statements, two Senators\
)Tj
0.03 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(contemplated a potential onslaught of challenges to the individual manda\
te)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(but, as the Secretary puts it, "never suggested that the only way for an\
)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(individual to obtain review would be . . . [through] a refund action." T\
he)Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(Supreme Court has long held that such statements are of little assistanc\
e)Tj
0.69 Tw T*
(in ascertaining congressional intent. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Grove City College v. Bell)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(,)Tj
0 Tw T*
(465 U.S 555, 567 \(1984\). Moreover, the floor statements relied on here\
are)Tj
1.78 Tw T*
(irrelevant, because at most they signal an acknowledgment of potential)Tj
3.81 Tw T*
(lawsuits, not an endorsement of challenges seeking pre-enforcement)Tj
1 Tw T*
(injunctive relief. )Tj
1.81 Tw 10 -16.3 Td
(The dissent goes even a step further than the Secretary, inferring an)Tj
1.62 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(AIA exception because drafts of what became the Affordable Care Act)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(had previously called the challenged exaction a "tax." The Supreme Court\
)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(has warned against such an approach, cautioning courts not to read much)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(into Congress's unexplained decision to change wording in a final bill. \
)Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See)Tj
0.72 Tw T*
(Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 331 U.S. 40, 61 \(1947\) \(noting that the "inter-)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(pretation of statutes cannot safely be made to rest upon mute intermedia\
te)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(legislative maneuvers"\). Moreover, the dissent errs in suggesting that \
our)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(holding "ignores" this wording change; rather, we simply hold that chang\
e)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(irrelevant )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(to the AIA bar)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(. Congress's decision to call the challenged exac-)Tj
1.12 Tw T*
(tion a "penalty" may affect its treatment under sections of the Code tha\
t)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(expressly distinguish "taxes" from "penalties," e.g. those pertaining to\
the)Tj
0.95 Tw T*
(timing of interest accrual. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See Latterman v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 872 F.2d 564,)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(569-70 \(3d Cir. 1989\). Or Congress's wording change may have simply)Tj
0 Tw T*
(carried political benefits. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See Florida v. HHS)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 716 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1142-)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(43 \(N.D. Fla. 2010\). No evidence, however, indicates that the change w\
as)Tj
1 Tw T*
(intended to exempt the individual mandate from the AIA. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -167.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(37)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
447 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.87 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(Of course, the 2010 Congress could have exempted the)Tj
0.96 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(individual mandate from the AIA. But to date it has not pro-)Tj
0.24 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(vided for such an exemption, and surely we cannot hold it has)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.08 Tw T*
(implicitly)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
45.336 -48.9 Td
( done so. To infer an intent on the part of the 2010)Tj
1.28 Tw -45.336 -13.5 Td
(Congress to exempt this pre-enforcement challenge from the)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(otherwise-applicable AIA bar would be tantamount to finding)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(an implicit repeal of that bar; such an approach would violate)Tj
5.07 Tw T*
(the "cardinal rule" that "repeals by implication are not)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(favored." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(TVA v. Hill)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 437 U.S. 153, 189 \(1978\) \(applying the)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(implicit "repeal" doctrine to the TVA's argument that "the)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(Act cannot reasonably be interpreted as applying to [the chal-)Tj
2.92 Tw T*
(lenged] federal project"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also United States v. United)Tj
1.61 Tw T*
(Continental Tuna Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 425 U.S. 170, 169 \(1976\) \(holding)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
(that courts must be "hesitant to infer that Congress," in enact-)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(ing a later statute, "intended to authorize evasion of a [prior])Tj
3.08 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(statute"\). Given that the terms of the AIA encompass the)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(exaction imposed by \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.87 Tw (5000A\(b\), the "only permissible justi-)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(fication" for exempting that exaction is if the individual man-)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(date is "irreconcilable" with the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Hill)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 437 U.S. at 189.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Obviously, it is not.)Tj
0.12 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(Accordingly, it is simply irrelevant what the 2010 Congress)Tj
0.27 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(would have thought about the AIA; all that matters is whether)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(the 2010 Congress imposed a tax. If it did, then the AIA bars)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(pre-enforcement challenges to that tax. After all, were we to)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(embrace the argument pressed by the Secretary and the dis-)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(sent that the AIA applies only when a subsequent Congress)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(has exhibited an intent for it to apply, we would impermiss-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(ibly render the AIA little more than a non-binding suggestion)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(to future Congresses, devoid of independent legal force. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(Tuna Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 425 U.S. at 169 \(holding that courts must require)Tj
0.32 Tw T*
(explicit "expression by Congress" that it intends the "compro-)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(mise or abandonment of previously articulated policies"\). The)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(Supreme Court has rejected this very view, holding that the)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(AIA establishes a nearly irrebuttable presumption that no tax)Tj
2.21 Tw T*
(may be challenged in any pre-enforcement action. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Bob)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 743-46.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(36)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
448 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.5 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(adopted by the dissent, are brief and unsupported by any stat-)Tj
0.57 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(ute or case law. All are policy arguments, relying on the Sec-)Tj
3.18 Tw T*
(retary's view of what the 2010 Congress, in enacting the)Tj
2.05 Tw T*
(individual mandate, assertedly "would regard" as "mak[ing])Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(sense," or "would not have wanted," or as the dissent would)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(have it, what the 2010 Congress "intended." According to the)Tj
1.32 Tw T*
(Secretary and the dissent, these policy concerns demonstrate)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(that the 2010 Congress could not have wanted the AIA to bar)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(pre-enforcement challenges to the individual mandate.)Tj
1.07 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(The most fundamental difficulty with this contention is its)Tj
2.22 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(focus on the "intent" of the 2010 Congress in enacting the)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(individual mandate. Our task is not to divine the intent of the)Tj
3.32 Tw T*
(2010 Congress but simply to determine whether the term)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
("tax" in the AIA encompasses the exaction challenged here.)Tj
0.69 Tw T*
(To resolve this question, we must look to the text of the AIA)Tj
1 Tw T*
(and the intent )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
71.328 -224.1 Td
(of the Congresses that enacted and re-enacted)Tj
1.81 Tw -71.328 -13.5 Td
(that statute)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, just as the Supreme Court has done in its AIA)Tj
1.06 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(cases. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(South Carolina v. Regan)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 465 U.S. 367, 375)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(\(1984\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 741-42; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 109 U.S. at)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(191.)Tj
2.89 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(Once we conclude that the term "tax" in the AIA does)Tj
1.37 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(encompass a challenged exaction, we can go no further. For)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(the terms of the AIA declare that courts, save for specific stat-)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(utory exceptions, not applicable here, may entertain ")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(no)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( suit)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.88 Tw T*
(any)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( tax." 26 U.S.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.88 Tw (7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). This expan-)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(sive language leaves no room for a court to carve out excep-)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(tions based on the policy ramifications of a particular pre-)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(enforcement challenge. The Supreme Court said as much in)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.61 Tw T*
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, repudiating its old cases that had embraced a "de-)Tj
1.09 Tw T*
(parture from the literal reading of the Act" based on "excep-)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(tional circumstances." 416 U.S. at 743. In doing so, the Court)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(instructed that courts must give the AIA "literal force, without)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(regard to the . . . nature of the pre-enforcement challenge." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(at 742.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(35)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
449 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.8 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(mandate the conclusion that the AIA bars this suit seeking to)Tj
2.54 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
("restrain" an "assessment" of the exaction challenged here,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(regardless of the exaction's label.)Tj
0.77 Tw 12 -26.3 Td
(The Secretary's contrary "label" argument not only fails to)Tj
0.18 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(persuade, it also requires a strained interpretation of the Code.)Tj
4.7 Tw T*
(The Secretary urges us to take the view that Congress)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(intended the individual mandate to constitute the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
248.608 -101.2 Td
(only)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exac-)Tj
0.7 Tw -248.608 -13.3 Td
(tion imposed by the lengthy Internal Revenue Code that does)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(not qualify as a "tax.")Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (11)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( The consequences of this counterintui-)Tj
3.16 Tw T*
(tive argument extend well beyond the AIA. For example,)Tj
1.8 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(accepting the Secretary's contention that the label "penalty")Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(exempts the individual mandate from provisions applicable to)Tj
3.41 Tw T*
("taxes" would inexplicably eliminate a host of procedural)Tj
9.16 Tw T*
(safeguards against abusive tax collection. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
6.8 Tw T*
(\247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
6.8 Tw (7217\(a\) \(prohibiting executive branch officials from)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(requesting IRS officials to "conduct or terminate an audit . . .)Tj
1.67 Tw T*
(with respect to the tax liability" of any particular taxpayer\),)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(7433\(a\) \(providing civil damages for unauthorized "collection)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(of Federal tax"\), 7435 \(providing civil damages for unautho-)Tj
1.92 Tw T*
(rized enticement of disclosure concerning the "collection of)Tj
1.31 Tw T*
(any tax"\). We will not presume that Congress intended such)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(an anomalous result, and we certainly cannot infer this intent)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(on the basis of a mere label.)Tj
144.498 -26.3 Td
(C.)Tj
1.14 Tw -132.498 -26.2 Td
(The Secretary's remaining contentions, some of which are)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
3.73 Tw 4.1 Ts -2 -26 Td
(11)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The Secretary yet again employs faulty reasoning to reach this)Tj
0.98 Tw -10 -11.2 Td
(remarkable conclusion. He contends that three other exactions labeled as\
)Tj
4.33 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(penalties and codified )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(outside)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( Chapter 68 \320 I.R.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.33 Tw (5114\(c\)\(3\),)Tj
1.49 Tw T*
(5684\(b\), 5761\(e\) \320 constitute "taxes" for purposes of the AIA bec\
ause)Tj
0.98 Tw T*
(they shall be "assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes\
,)Tj
3.25 Tw T*
(as provided in section 6665\(a\)." But the only meaningful difference)Tj
0.32 Tw T*
(between these provisions and the individual mandate is the addition of t\
he)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(phrase, "as provided in section 6665\(a\)," which refers only to the pre\
vious)Tj
3.76 Tw T*
(clause and does not incorporate the separate, unreferenced parts of)Tj
1 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (6665\(a\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -376.95 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(34)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
450 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.86 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(material changes to existing law"\); S. Rep. No. 83-1622, at)Tj
0.16 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(595-96 \(1954\) \(same\).)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
107.96 -21.8 Td
(9)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Given this history, we cannot interpret)Tj
0.96 Tw -107.96 -13.4 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.96 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) as working any substantive change to the Code;)Tj
2.78 Tw T*
(rather, it simply "mak[es] explicit what" was already "im-)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(plied" by the Code. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Sischo)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 262 U.S. at 169; )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(see also Walters)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 473 U.S. 305, 317-18)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(\(1985\). That Congress did not repeat this clarifying language)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(when it enacted the individual mandate, which is not part of)Tj
3.71 Tw T*
(any reorganization or recodification of the Code, demon-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(strates nothing.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (10)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.81 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26.6 Td
(Rather, Congress well knew that the Code had for decades)Tj
0.17 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(expressly provided that for purposes of the Secretary's assess-)Tj
1.04 Tw T*
(ment power, the term "tax" "includ[es] . . . penalties." I.R.C.)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.91 Tw (6201\(a\). Specific direction that the term "tax" in the AIA)Tj
3.03 Tw T*
(encompass the individual mandate "penalty" was therefore)Tj
1.4 Tw T*
(unnecessary. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Cf. Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 741-42 \(noting that)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(Congress intended AIA to adapt to evolving "complexity of)Tj
3.2 Tw T*
(federal tax system"\). Put another way, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.2 Tw (6201 specifically)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(provides the Secretary with authority to make "assessments of)Tj
1.18 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(all taxes \(including . . . penalties\)," and the AIA specifically)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(bars judicial interference with the Secretary's power to make)Tj
0.29 Tw T*
("assessment . . . of any tax." Given that Congress has not pro-)Tj
3.03 Tw T*
(vided to the contrary, these two provisions taken together)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
1.08 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.3 Td
(9)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Congress originally inserted the text of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.08 Tw (6665 as \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.08 Tw (6659 of the 1954)Tj
4.83 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(Code, )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-289,)Tj
1.01 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.01 Tw (6659\(a\)\(2\), 68A Stat. 1, 827 \(1954\), but relocated it to \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.01 Tw (6665 in 1989)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(without making any changes to it, )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( Omnibus Reconciliation Act of)Tj
0.09 Tw T*
(1989, Pub. L. No. 101-239, tit. VII, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.09 Tw (7721\(a\), \(c\)\(2\), 103 Stat. 2106, 2399)Tj
1 Tw T*
(\(1989\) \(codified at I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1 Tw (6665\(a\)\). )Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.28 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14.1 Td
(10)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (This does not mean that \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.28 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\), which includes Chapter 68 pen-)Tj
1.04 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(alties within the term "tax" )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(throughout)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( the Code, serves no purpose. For)Tj
1.39 Tw T*
(example, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.39 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) may well be necessary to authorize a taxpayer to)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(pursue a civil suit for the illegal "collection of Federal tax" against \
a col-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(lector who intentionally misinterprets the Code in collecting a Chapter \
68)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
("penalty." )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.03 Tw (7433\(a\); )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(cf. Sylvester v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 978 F. Supp.)Tj
2.69 Tw T*
(1186, 1189 \(E.D. Wis. 1997\); )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Le Premier Processors, Inc. v. United)Tj
1 Tw T*
(States)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 775 F. Supp. 897, 902 n.6 \(E.D. La. 1990\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -327.95 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(33)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
451 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.88 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(bly)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
14.664 -8.4 Td
(, 353 F.3d 1357, the Secretary defended against a pre-)Tj
4.28 Tw -14.664 -13 Td
(enforcement challenge to an exaction imposed by I.R.C.)Tj
0.63 Tw 0 -13 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.63 Tw (527\(j\), for failure to comply with the conditions attached to)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(tax-exempt status. The district court held the AIA inapplica-)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(ble for precisely the reasons that the Secretary now espouses,)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(i.e. because Congress had labeled the exaction a "penalty" and)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(codified it outside of Chapter 68. )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(See National Federation of)Tj
3.5 Tw T*
(Republican Assemblies v. United States)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, 148 F. Supp. 2d)Tj
3.16 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(1273, 1280 \(S.D. Ala. 2001\). But the Secretary appealed,)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(insisting that the AIA )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(did)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( apply because the challenged "pen-)Tj
0.35 Tw T*
(alty" was to be "assessed and collected in the same manner as)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(taxes." Br. of Appellant at 32, )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(Mobile Republican Assembly)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(,)Tj
2.66 Tw T*
(353 F.3d 1357 \(Feb. 18, 2003\) \(No. 02-16283\), 2003 WL)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(23469121. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and dismissed the suit)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(because the exaction was based "squarely upon the explicit)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(language of the Internal Revenue Code" and "form[ed] part of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the overall tax subsidy scheme." 353 F.3d at 1362 n.5.)Tj
0 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Secretary fails to explain his change in position or even)Tj
0.47 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(refer to the Eleventh Circuit's holding that the AIA applies to)Tj
0.45 Tw T*
("penalties" codified outside of Chapter 68. Instead, the Secre-)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(tary's argument boils down to his intuition, accepted by the)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(Sixth Circuit and the dissent, that "Congress said one thing in)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(sections 6665\(a\)\(2\) and 6671\(a\), and something else in sec-)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(tion 5000A [the individual mandate], and we should respect)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(the difference." )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(Thomas More)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___ [No. 10-2388,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(slip op. at 12].)Tj
0.7 Tw 12 -26 Td
(But we can easily "respect the difference" in congressional)Tj
2.76 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(wording without holding plaintiffs' challenge exempt from)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(the AIA bar. The legislative history of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.41 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) makes)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(clear that Congress inserted that provision in the course of)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(reorganizing and codifying the revenue laws in 1954, and did)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(so merely to declare explicitly what had been implicit\320that)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(the term "tax" for purposes of the Code also refers to "penal-)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(ties" imposed by the Code. )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( H.R. Rep. No. 83-1337, at)Tj
2.15 Tw T*
(A420 \(1954\) \(noting that predecessor to \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.15 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) "con-)Tj
3.1 Tw T*
(forms to the rules under existing law" and "contain[s] no)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(32)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
452 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.2 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the penalties contained in Chapter 68; it does not limit the)Tj
0.86 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(term "tax" to )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
67.368 -21.5 Td
(only)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( these penalties. Nor can we imply such an)Tj
1.53 Tw -67.368 -13.1 Td
(limitation, for courts must not "read the enumeration of one)Tj
1.11 Tw T*
(case to exclude another unless it is fair to suppose that Con-)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(gress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say no)Tj
3 Tw T*
(to it." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 537 U.S. 149, 168)Tj
2 Tw T*
(\(2003\). There is no evidence that in enacting the clarifying)Tj
3.47 Tw T*
(language of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.47 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\), Congress intended to exclude a)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
("penalty" codified outside of Chapter 68 from also qualifying)Tj
2.29 Tw T*
(as a "tax." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States v. Sischo)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 262 U.S. 165, 169)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(\(1923\) \(holding no inference can be made to imply an exclu-)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(sion when Congress enacts an "extension," rather than "re-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(striction," of a term\).)Tj
10.5 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Furthermore, the suggestion that we infer from)Tj
0.24 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.24 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) a categorical exclusion from the term "tax" of all)Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(non-Chapter 68 penalties violates Congress's express instruc-)Tj
0 Tw T*
(tions. In \247 7806\(b\) of the Code, Congress has forbidden courts)Tj
1.27 Tw T*
(from deriving any "inference" or "implication" from the "lo-)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(cation or grouping of any particular section or provision or)Tj
1.85 Tw T*
(portion of this title." I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.85 Tw (7806\(b\). The argument of the)Tj
2.92 Tw T*
(Secretary and the dissent demands that we draw precisely)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(such a forbidden "inference," for under their theory, the char-)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(acter of a penalty turns entirely on the Chapter in which it is)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("locat[ed].")Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (8)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.61 Tw 0 Ts 12 -26 Td
(Moreover, the Secretary's newly-minted position that Con-)Tj
1.7 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(gress has implicitly excluded any "penalty" codified outside)Tj
0.22 Tw T*
(of Chapter 68 from qualifying as a "tax" contradicts his previ-)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(ous interpretation of the AIA. In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Mobile Republican Assem-)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.52 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.9 Td
(8)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Contrary to the dissent's contention, this conclusion does not "reject)Tj
0.48 Tw -10 -11.1 Td
(the legal force" of \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.48 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\). When Congress expressly directs that the)Tj
0.3 Tw 0 -11.1 TD
(location of a provision matters, as it has in \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.3 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\), then a court need)Tj
0 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(not )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(infer)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( anything and Congress's direction controls. But to adopt the posi-)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(tion of the Secretary and the dissent, a court would have to )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(infer)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( that an)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(exaction is not to be treated as a tax from the exaction's place in the \
Code)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(\(here Chapter 48 rather than Chapter 68\). It is this )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(inference)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( that the Code)Tj
1 Tw T*
(forbids. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -399.55 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(31)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
453 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.03 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the Constitution. As former Commissioners of the IRS noted)Tj
1.27 Tw 0 -13 TD
(in criticizing this argument, this is the "opposite of what the)Tj
1.48 Tw T*
(Supreme Court held" in the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
167.772 -34.4 Td
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Brief for)Tj
0.5 Tw -167.772 -13 Td
(Mortimer Caplin & Sheldon Cohen as Amici Curiae Support-)Tj
0.85 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(ing Appellees at 24, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Seven-Sky v. Holder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, No. 11-5047 \(D.C.)Tj
2 Tw T*
(Cir. July 1, 2011\). The Secretary all but acknowledges this)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(fact, admitting that the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases show only the "converse")Tj
1.03 Tw T*
(of the position that he now propounds. We cannot upend the)Tj
3.67 Tw T*
(Supreme Court's settled framework for determining if an)Tj
0 Tw T*
(exaction is a tax for statutory purposes on the basis of a theory)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(for which the Secretary musters only cases that hold the "con-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(verse.")Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
0.55 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(Perhaps in recognition of the dearth of case law supporting)Tj
1.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(their argument, the Secretary and the dissent rely heavily on)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(an inference they draw from the structure of the Internal Rev-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(enue Code to support their position.)Tj
0.25 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Section 6665\(a\)\(2\) provides the starting point for this infer-)Tj
0.49 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ence; it states that "any reference in this title to `tax' imposed)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the . . . penalties)Tj
11.15 Tw T*
(provided by )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(this chapter)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(," i.e. Chapter 68. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.6 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.6 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\)\(emphasis added\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
4.6 Tw (6671\(a\) \(redun-)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(dantly stating the same for "penalties and liabilities provided)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(by" subchapter B of Chapter 68\). According to the Secretary)Tj
3.75 Tw T*
(and the dissent, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.75 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) necessarily implies that any)Tj
0.19 Tw T*
("penalty" outside of Chapter 68 does not qualify as a "tax" for)Tj
0.46 Tw T*
(purposes of the Code. Because Congress codified the individ-)Tj
2.01 Tw T*
(ual mandate in Chapter 48 of the Code \(entitled "Miscella-)Tj
6.11 Tw T*
(neous Excise Taxes"\) rather than Chapter 68 \(entitled)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
("Assessable Penalties"\), the Secretary and the dissent urge us)Tj
1.51 Tw T*
(to infer that Congress did not intend the individual mandate)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(to constitute a "tax" for purposes of the AIA.)Tj
4.8 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The fundamental difficulty with this argument is that)Tj
0.7 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.7 Tw (6665\(a\)\(2\) merely clarifies that the term "tax" encompasses)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(30)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
454 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.3 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(assessment under his general revenue authority; rather, it con-)Tj
1.22 Tw 0 -13 TD
(verted him into a federal prosecutor. Specifically, it \(1\) con-)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(ferred upon the collector an array of prosecutorial powers,)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(subject to the control of the Attorney General, and \(2\) predi-)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(cated the enforcement of the challenged tax on proof of )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
270.656 -60.4 Td
(crimi-)Tj
0.81 Tw -270.656 -13 Td
(nal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( guilt. 41 Stat. 305, 317-18. The )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Court held that the)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(AIA did not bar a pre-enforcement challenge to this exaction)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(because "guarantees of due process" required pre-enforcement)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(review of "penalties for crime." 262 U.S. at 562.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.4 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( thus casts no doubt on our conclusion that the term)Tj
1.35 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
("tax" in the AIA reaches any exaction imposed by the Code)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.33 Tw T*
(and)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( assessed by the tax collector pursuant to his general reve-)Tj
1.78 Tw T*
(nue authority. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( held only that when Congress converts)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(the tax assessment process into a vehicle for )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(criminal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( prose-)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(cution, the Due Process Clause prohibits courts from applying)Tj
2.27 Tw T*
(the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States v. One Ford Coupe Auto.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 272)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(U.S. 321, 329 \(1926\) \(characterizing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( as "merely" a "due)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(process" case\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 743 \(describ-)Tj
1.47 Tw T*
(ing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( as permitting pre-enforcement review of "tax stat-)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(utes" that function as "adjuncts to the criminal law"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lynn v.)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(West)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 134 F.3d 582, 594-95 \(4th Cir. 1998\) \(citing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( for)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(proposition that courts possess jurisdiction to enjoin "a tax)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(that is in reality a criminal penalty"\). Of course, the individual)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(mandate imposes no such )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(criminal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( penalty, and thus presents)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(no constitutional impediment to applying the AIA. )Tj
0.22 Tw 12 -26 Td
(In sum, the Supreme Court has itself emphasized that )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.75 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(creates only a narrow constitutional limitation, not applicable)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(here, on the holding of the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases that the AIA)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(reaches a )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(broader)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( range of exactions than does the term "tax")Tj
0.66 Tw T*
(in the Constitution. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12 \(cit-)Tj
0.21 Tw T*
(ing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( and noting, in the context of the AIA, that the Court)Tj
4.11 Tw T*
(has since "abandoned" any distinction between "revenue-)Tj
0.62 Tw T*
(raising" taxes and "regulatory" penalties\). Yet the theory pro-)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(pounded by the Secretary and the dissent\320that a label trans-)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(forms a constitutional "tax" into a "penalty" for AIA purposes)Tj
0.27 Tw T*
(\320 would yield an AIA that reaches )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(fewer)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( exactions than does)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(29)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
455 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.84 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(It seems doubtful that the Court departed from its normal)Tj
1.75 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(practice of ignoring statutory labels without explaining why)Tj
5.06 Tw T*
(it was doing so. Instead, the more likely\320and just as)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
("straightforward"\320explanation is that the Court described the)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(exaction as a "taxing statute" because Congress had charged)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(the tax collector with assessing the challenged exaction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
283.3 -73.9 Td
(See)Tj
0.5 Tw -283.3 -13.1 Td
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 109 U.S. at 192.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (7)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Contrary to the dissent's belief, this)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(holding did not require the Court to perform any elaborate)Tj
1.4 Tw T*
("functional analysis," but rather to recognize simply that the)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(challenged exaction formed part of the general revenue laws.)Tj
0.88 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The dissent's related contention\320that our interpretation of)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.07 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( brings that case into conflict with )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, in)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(which the Supreme Court held that the AIA did not bar a cer-)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(tain pre-enforcement challenge\320also misses the mark. In)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.41 Tw T*
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Court faced a challenge to the Secretary's assess-)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(ment of an exaction imposed pursuant to the National Prohibi-)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(tion Act, a statute "primarily designed to define and suppress)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
3.55 Tw T*
(crime)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(." 259 U.S. at 561 \(emphasis added\). Congress had)Tj
2.35 Tw T*
(enacted the statute to "prohibit intoxicating beverages" and)Tj
0.57 Tw T*
(authorized the tax collector to enforce a "tax" against persons)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(who in violation of this criminal statute illegally manufac-)Tj
2 Tw T*
(tured or sold liquor. 41 Stat. 318. The National Prohibition)Tj
3.3 Tw T*
(Act, however, did not authorize the collector to make an)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.39 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26 Td
(7)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The dissent argues that the statement in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 109 U.S. at 192-93,)Tj
1.26 Tw -10 -11.1 Td
(that the term "tax" in the AIA refers to those exactions "claimed by the\
)Tj
0.59 Tw 0 -11.1 TD
(proper public officers to be a tax," makes relevant the Secretary's pres\
ent)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(litigation position that the AIA does not bar this lawsuit. The most fun\
da-)Tj
0.59 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(mental problem with this argument is that the Secretary still does "clai\
m")Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(that the challenged exaction is a "tax," albeit one authorized by the Co\
nsti-)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(tution's Taxing Clause. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( Appellee's Br. at 58. We cannot hold that the)Tj
0.01 Tw T*
(AIA does not apply to this "tax" merely because the Secretary has change\
d)Tj
0.35 Tw T*
(his stance on the AIA and now contends that the exaction is a tax )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(only)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( for)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(constitutional purposes. To give the Secretary's lawyers such a veto ove\
r)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(the AIA bar would abdicate our "independent obligation" to assure our-)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(selves of our own jurisdiction. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Arbaugh)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 546 U.S. at 514. Moreover, Con-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(gress called the exaction in the employer mandate a "tax." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( 26 U.S.C.)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.78 Tw (4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\), \(d\)\(1\). The argument is for this reason\
, too, fatally)Tj
1 Tw T*
(flawed. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -321.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(28)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
456 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.3 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(first address the Secretary's argument on this point and then)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13 TD
(the dissent's.)Tj
3.34 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Secretary acknowledges that when "passing on the)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0.21 Tw -12 -13 Td
(constitutionality)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
78.012 -60.4 Td
( of a tax law," a court places no weight on the)Tj
0.11 Tw -78.012 -13 Td
("precise form of descriptive words" attached to the challenged)Tj
0.6 Tw T*
(exaction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 312 U.S. 359, 363)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(\(1941\) \(internal quotation omitted\) \(emphasis added\). But cit-)Tj
0.74 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(ing the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases as authority, the Secretary contends)Tj
0.42 Tw T*
(that the opposite rule must apply for purposes of the AIA, i.e.)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(that for purposes of the AIA, the "precise form of descriptive)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(words" given an exaction becomes dispositive.)Tj
0.85 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Secretary's reliance on the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases is mysti-)Tj
0.18 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(fying. In fact, they provide no support for his position. In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bai-)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(ley v. Drexel Furniture)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 38, a refund action, the)Tj
3 Tw T*
(Court held that an exaction exceeded Congress's constitu-)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(tional taxing authority, while on the same day, in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v.)Tj
0.92 Tw T*
(George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 16, it dismissed a pre-enforcement chal-)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(lenge to the same exaction, characterizing it as a "taxing stat-)Tj
3.75 Tw T*
(ute" for purposes of the AIA. When dismissing the pre-)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(enforcement action, the Court did not state or suggest that it)Tj
1.02 Tw T*
(classified the challenged statute as a "taxing statute" because)Tj
1.56 Tw T*
(Congress labeled it as such. Nor does it seem plausible that)Tj
2.9 Tw T*
(the Court implicitly relied on that label, given that it had)Tj
2.11 Tw T*
(never before and has never since found an exaction's label)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(controlling for statutory purposes. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g., Reorganized CF)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(& I)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 518 U.S. at 220; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Sotelo)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 436 U.S. at 275; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S.)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(at 561; )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 188 U.S. at 613. Rather, only one explanation)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(of the twin )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases coheres with the Court's precedents:)Tj
1.69 Tw T*
(the term "tax" in the AIA reaches any exaction assessed by)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
(the Secretary pursuant to his authority under the Internal Rev-)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(enue Code\320even one that constitutes a "penalty" for constitu-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(tional purposes.)Tj
0.9 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The dissent's contention that the Supreme Court's reliance)Tj
0.56 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(on the statutory label in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( is so "obvious" that)Tj
T*
(it required no explanation by the Court strikes us as unsound.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(27)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
457 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.3 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(answer directly on the operation of the provision"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
267.256 -8.4 Td
(United)Tj
0.28 Tw -267.256 -13.5 Td
(States v. Sotelo)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 436 U.S. 268, 275 \(1978\) \(holding exaction's)Tj
2.62 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
("penalty" label not dispositive, but its "essential character")Tj
1.7 Tw T*
(controls, in determining whether exaction is a tax for bank-)Tj
T*
(ruptcy purposes\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. New York)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 315 U.S. 510,)Tj
2.82 Tw T*
(515-16 \(1942\) \(stressing that the term "tax" includes "any)Tj
0.48 Tw T*
(pecuniary burden laid upon individuals . . . for the purpose of)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(supporting the government, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(by whatever name)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( it may be cal-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(led" \(internal quotation omitted and emphasis added\)\).)Tj
0.37 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Indeed, the Court has specifically found an exaction's label)Tj
2.63 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(immaterial to the applicability of the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(U.S. 557 \(1922\). In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Lipke)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, the Supreme Court held that the)Tj
0.63 Tw T*
("mere use of [a] word" to describe a challenged exaction was)Tj
1.91 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
("not enough to show" whether a "tax was laid." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 561.)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(The Court concluded that one of the challenged exactions,)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(although labeled a "tax," functioned in reality to "suppress)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(crime" and so fell outside the AIA bar. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Moreover, notwith-)Tj
3.38 Tw T*
(standing the "penalty" and "special penalty" labels of the)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(other challenged exactions, neither the majority nor Justice)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(Brandeis in dissent gave these labels any import in determin-)Tj
1.06 Tw T*
(ing the applicability of the AIA. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Compare id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 561-62 )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(with)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( at 563-65 \(Brandeis, J., dissenting\).)Tj
1.63 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(In light of this history, it is not surprising that no federal)Tj
0.55 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(appellate court, except the Sixth Circuit in )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, has)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(ever held that the label affixed to an exaction controls, or is)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(even relevant to, the applicability of the AIA.)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (6)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( Nonetheless,)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(the Secretary and the dissent insist that the label of an exac-)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(tion does control in determining if the AIA bar applies. We)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.52 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.3 Td
(6)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (We certainly respect the views of the courts, trumpeted by the dissent,)Tj
0.31 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(that have held the AIA inapplicable to suits like the one at hand. We no\
te,)Tj
1.31 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(however, that even unanimity among the lower courts is not necessarily)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(predictive of the views of the Supreme Court. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See CBOCS West, Inc. v.)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(Humphries)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 553 U.S. 442, 472 \(2008\) \(Thomas, J., dissenting\) \(collecting)Tj
0.12 Tw T*
(cases where the Supreme Court has "reject[ed]" a "view uniformly held by\
)Tj
1 Tw T*
(the courts of appeals"\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -409.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(26)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
458 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
4.37 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(Given this history, it seems inconceivable that Congress)Tj
0.67 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(would intend to exclude an exaction from the AIA merely by)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(describing it as a "penalty.")Tj
0.6 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(To be sure, Congress called the penalty at issue in the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
279.228 -61.8 Td
(Bai-)Tj
0.99 Tw -279.228 -13.4 Td
(ley)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( cases a "tax." That fact, however, only aids the Secretary)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(if there is something talismanic about the )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(label)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( "penalty" that)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(removes a challenged exaction from the scope of the AIA.)Tj
2.92 Tw T*
(The Secretary has cited no case even remotely supporting)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(such a proposition. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly)Tj
3.85 Tw T*
(instructed that congressional labels have little bearing on)Tj
2.8 Tw T*
(whether an exaction qualifies as a "tax" for statutory pur-)Tj
1.46 Tw T*
(poses. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g., Helwig v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 188 U.S. 605, 613)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(\(1903\) \(holding "use of words" does not "change the nature)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(and character of the enactment" in the context of the revenue)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(laws\);)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (5)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabrica-)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(tors of Utah, Inc.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 518 U.S. 213, 220 \(1996\) \(requiring a court)Tj
0.46 Tw T*
(to look "behind the label placed on the exaction and rest[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.46 Tw (] its)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
1.09 Tw 0 -26.4 TD
(raising "tax" and a regulatory "penalty" from that context. To accept th\
e)Tj
1.03 Tw 0 -11.4 TD
(dissent's view would place us at odds with the Supreme Court's explicit)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(holding, in the context )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(of the AIA)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, that the distinction between "regulatory)Tj
2.36 Tw T*
(and revenue-raising" exactions has been "abandoned." )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 416)Tj
1 Tw T*
(U.S. at 741 & n.12. )Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
0.23 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14.1 Td
(5)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0 Ts (Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( does not, as the dissent contends, support its view that an exac-)Tj
1.72 Tw -10 -11.4 Td
(tion's label controls. The Court in )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( acknowledged that Congress)Tj
1.05 Tw T*
(may expressly classify an exaction as a "penalty or in the nature of one\
,)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
1.09 Tw T*
(with reference to)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( the further action of the officers of the government, or)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
1.04 Tw T*
(with reference to)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( the distribution of the moneys thus paid, or )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(with refer-)Tj
0.52 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(ence to)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( its effect upon the individual," and that "it is the duty of the court)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(to be governed by such statutory direction." 188 U.S. at 613 \(emphasis)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(added\). The Court then identified statute after statute illustrating th\
e vari-)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(ous ways in which Congress has historically directed a "duty," "addition\
al)Tj
1.38 Tw T*
(duty," or "penalty" to be treated "with reference to" a specified govern\
-)Tj
2.19 Tw T*
(mental action. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( at 614-19. Congress has provided no such direction)Tj
1.61 Tw T*
("with reference to" the AIA, and )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Helwig)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( makes clear that a mere label)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(describing an exaction does )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( constitute such direction. )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(See id.)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( at 613)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(\(explaining that "describing" an exaction "as `a further sum' or `an ad\
di-)Tj
0.06 Tw T*
(tional duty' will not work a statutory alteration of the nature of the i\
mposi-)Tj
1 Tw T*
(tion"\). )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -247.95 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(25)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
459 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.28 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(I.R.C. \247\247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
45.284 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
1.28 Tw (6201\(a\), 6202, 5000A\(g\)\(1\). For these reasons, the)Tj
1.2 Tw -45.284 -13.3 Td
(AIA bars this action.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.5 Tw 4.9 Ts (3)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts ( )Tj
142.506 -26.4 Td
(III.)Tj
0.9 Tw -130.506 -26.4 Td
(The Secretary's contrary contention primarily relies on the)Tj
1.5 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(fact that the individual mandate labels the imposed exaction)Tj
2.04 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(a "penalty," not a "tax." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.04 Tw (5000A\(b\). For the Secretary, the)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(Sixth Circuit, )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(see Thomas More Law Center v. Obama)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, ___)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(F.3d ___\(6th Cir. 2011\) [No. 10-2388], and now our friend in)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(dissent, this "penalty" label renders the AIA inapplicable.)Tj
144.168 -26.4 Td
(A.)Tj
4.8 Tw -132.168 -26.4 Td
(Indisputably, the AIA bars pre-enforcement challenges)Tj
1.68 Tw -12 -13.3 Td
(even when Congress has "exhibit[ed] its intent" that a chal-)Tj
2.02 Tw T*
(lenged exaction function as a "penalty." )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(Compare Bailey v.)Tj
0.3 Tw T*
(Drexel)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 38, )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(with Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259 U.S. at 20.)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(The term "penalty" therefore describes a category of exaction)Tj
2.06 Tw T*
(to which the Supreme Court has )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
(already applied)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the AIA.)Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (4)Tj
0.42 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -26.1 Td
(3)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (Although both parties generally contend that the AIA does not bar this)Tj
0.45 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(suit, neither offers any reason why the challenge to the )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(employer)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( mandate)Tj
1.9 Tw 0 -11.3 TD
(escapes the AIA bar. There is good reason for that. Because Congress)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(placed the employer mandate in the Internal Revenue Code, triggering the\
)Tj
0.86 Tw T*
(Secretary's authority to assess and collect payment, all of the reasons \
set)Tj
1.26 Tw T*
(forth in the text as to why the AIA bars a pre-enforcement challenge to)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(the individual mandate also apply to the employer mandate. We addition-)Tj
0.68 Tw T*
(ally note that Congress waived none of the Secretary's collection tools \
in)Tj
0.19 Tw T*
(imposing the employer mandate and labeled the exaction a "tax" in certai\
n)Tj
3.7 Tw T*
(subsections. )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.7 Tw (4980H\(b\)\(2\), \(c\)\(7\), \(d\)\(1\). Accordingly, the AIA)Tj
1 Tw T*
(clearly bars Liberty's challenge to the employer mandate. )Tj
/T1_1 6 Tf
0.4 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -14 Td
(4)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (This is not to elide the general distinction between taxes and penalties\
.)Tj
0.51 Tw -10 -11.3 Td
(We agree with the Sixth Circuit's general observation that there are "co\
n-)Tj
1.1 Tw T*
(texts" in which "the law treats `taxes' and `penalties' as mutually excl\
u-)Tj
3.73 Tw 0 -11.2 TD
(sive." )Tj
/T1_2 10 Tf
(Thomas More)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, ___ F.3d at ___ \(slip op. at 11\) \(citing one)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(bankruptcy and two constitutional cases\). The question here is whether \
the)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(AIA is one of these "contexts." Neither the Secretary nor the Sixth Circ\
uit)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(cites a single case suggesting that it is. The dissent relies on some ba\
nk-)Tj
1.53 Tw T*
(ruptcy cases in an attempt to import the distinction between a revenue-)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -272.15 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(24)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
460 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.22 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(by, other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The AIA)Tj
1.9 Tw 0 -13 TD
(does not use the term "tax" in a vacuum; rather, it protects)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(from judicial interference the ")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
156.828 -34.4 Td
(assessment)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( . . . of any tax.")Tj
1.05 Tw -156.828 -13 Td
(I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.05 Tw (7421\(a\) \(emphasis added\). The Secretary's authority)Tj
0.82 Tw T*
(to make such an "assessment . . . of any tax" derives directly)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(from another provision in the Code, which charges the Secre-)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(tary with making "assessments of all taxes \()Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(including)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( interest,)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(penal-)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(ties)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(\) imposed by this title." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.3 Tw (6201\(a\) \(emphases added\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see)Tj
6.02 Tw T*
(also)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
6.02 Tw (6202 \("assessment of any internal revenue tax")Tj
0.61 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(includes assessment of "penalties"\). Thus, for purposes of the)Tj
3.04 Tw T*
(very assessment authority that the AIA protects, Congress)Tj
2.53 Tw T*
(made clear that "penalties" \(as well as "interest, additional)Tj
1.58 Tw T*
(amounts, [and] additions to the tax"\) count as "taxes." Con-)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(gress must have intended the term "tax" in the AIA to refer)Tj
3.07 Tw T*
(to this same broad range of exactions. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Erlenbaugh v.)Tj
3.3 Tw T*
(United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 409 U.S. 239, 243 \(1972\) \("[A] legislative)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(body generally uses a particular word with a consistent mean-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ing in a given context."\).)Tj
2.17 Tw 12 -26 Td
(In sum, the AIA forbids actions that seek to restrain the)Tj
3.28 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to assess)Tj
1.96 Tw T*
(exactions imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
2.03 Tw T*
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 740 \(holding AIA barred suit chal-)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(lenging IRS regulatory action when action was authorized by)Tj
5.15 Tw T*
("requirements of the [Internal Revenue Code]"\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Mobile)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(Republican Assembly v. United States)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 353 F.3d 1357, 1362)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(& n.5 \(11th Cir. 2003\) \(holding AIA barred suits challenging)Tj
0.25 Tw T*
("penalties imposed" for violating disclosure conditions of tax-)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(exempt status\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 99 F.3d 573,)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(583 & n.12 \(4th Cir. 1996\) \(holding AIA applied to "premi-)Tj
1.42 Tw T*
(ums" assessed and collected by the Secretary under color of)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(the Internal Revenue Code\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(cf. Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algon-)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(quin SNG, Inc.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 426 U.S. 548, 558 n.9 \(1976\) \(holding AIA)Tj
2.7 Tw T*
(did not bar challenge to "fees" because fees not "assessed)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(under" the Internal Revenue Code\). The exaction imposed for)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(failure to comply with the individual mandate constitutes a)Tj
1.68 Tw T*
("tax[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.68 Tw (]" as defined in the Code's assessment provisions. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(23)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
461 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.28 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(the AIA aims to ensure "prompt collection of . . . lawful reve-)Tj
1.62 Tw 0 -13 TD
(nue" by preventing taxpayers from inundating tax collectors)Tj
3.65 Tw T*
(with pre-enforcement lawsuits over "disputed sums." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
279.324 -34.4 Td
(Wil-)Tj
0.81 Tw -279.324 -13 Td
(liams Packing)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 370 U.S. at 7-8. Thus, an exaction constitutes)Tj
1.62 Tw T*
(a "tax" for purposes of the AIA so long as the method pre-)Tj
3.3 Tw T*
(scribed for its assessment conforms to the process of tax)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(enforcement. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Snyder v. Marks)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 109 U.S. 189, 192 \(1883\))Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(\(defining a "tax" in the AIA as any exaction "in a condition)Tj
0.45 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
([of being] collected as a tax"\). Specifically, the AIA prohibits)Tj
1.63 Tw T*
(a pre-enforcement challenge to any "exaction [that] is made)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(under color of their offices by revenue officers charged with)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(the general authority to assess and collect the revenue." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Phil-)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(lips v. CIR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 283 U.S. 589, 596 \(1931\) \(citing )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Snyder)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 109 U.S.)Tj
1.93 Tw T*
(at 192\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 740 \(applying the)Tj
1.56 Tw T*
(AIA bar when IRS action is authorized by "requirements of)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(the [Internal Revenue Code]"\).)Tj
2 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Supreme Court has steadfastly adhered to this broad)Tj
4.78 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(construction, notably in holding that the AIA bars pre-)Tj
3.1 Tw T*
(enforcement challenges to exactions that do )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(not)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( constitute)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
("taxes" under the Constitution. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Compare Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(259 U.S. 16 \(1922\) )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(with Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 259)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(U.S. 20 \(1922\). In )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bailey v. Drexel Furniture)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, a )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(refund)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( action,)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(the Court held unconstitutional as beyond Congress's Taxing)Tj
1.14 Tw T*
(Power a "so-called tax," finding it was in truth "a mere pen-)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(alty, with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.")Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(259 U.S. at 38. Yet the Court held the very same provision a)Tj
4.29 Tw T*
("tax" for purposes of the AIA and so dismissed a pre-)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(enforcement challenge to the exaction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Bailey v. George)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
3.6 Tw T*
(259 U.S. at 20. In recent years, the Court has expressly)Tj
1.13 Tw T*
(affirmed these holdings, reiterating that the term "tax" in the)Tj
0.87 Tw T*
(AIA encompasses penalties that function as mere "regulatory)Tj
0.38 Tw T*
(measure[s] beyond the taxing power of Congress" and Article)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(I of the Constitution. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 740.)Tj
0.48 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Court's broad interpretation of the AIA to bar interfer-)Tj
2.92 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ence with the assessment of any exaction imposed by the)Tj
0.44 Tw T*
(Code entirely accords with, and indeed seems to be mandated)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(22)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
462 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.93 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has explicitly)Tj
1.51 Tw 0 -13 TD
(so held. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
43.352 -21.4 Td
(See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(,)Tj
1.2 Tw -43.352 -13.1 Td
(370 U.S. 1, 5 \(1962\).)Tj
2.93 Tw 12 -26 Td
(By its terms the AIA bars suits seeking to )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(restrain)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the)Tj
0.8 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(assessment or collection of a tax. Thus, the AIA forbids only)Tj
1.85 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(pre-enforcement actions brought )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(before)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( the Secretary of the)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(Treasury or his delegee, the Internal Revenue Service \(IRS\),)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(has assessed or collected an exaction. A taxpayer can always)Tj
1.33 Tw T*
(pay an assessment, seek a refund directly from the IRS, and)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(then bring a refund action in federal court. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See United States)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 553 U.S. 1, 4-5 \(2008\).)Tj
2.42 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The parties recognize that plaintiffs here have brought a)Tj
4.08 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(pre-enforcement action. Moreover, although Congress has)Tj
2.46 Tw T*
(provided numerous express exceptions to the AIA bar, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.1 Tw T*
(I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.1 Tw (7421\(a\), the parties do not claim that any of these)Tj
0.74 Tw T*
(exceptions applies here. Resolution of the case at hand there-)Tj
3.14 Tw T*
(fore turns on whether plaintiffs' suit seeks to restrain the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(assessment or collection of "any tax.")Tj
144.498 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
0.42 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(A "tax, in the general understanding of the term," is simply)Tj
0.02 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
("an exaction for the support of the government." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(v. Butler)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 297 U.S. 1, 61 \(1936\). An exaction qualifies as a tax)Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(even when the exaction raises "obviously negligible" revenue)Tj
2.45 Tw T*
(and furthers a revenue purpose "secondary" to the primary)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(goal of regulation. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(United States v. Sanchez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 340 U.S. 42, 44)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(\(1950\); )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see also Bob Jones)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 416 U.S. at 741 n.12. Thus, the)Tj
3.65 Tw T*
(term "tax" can describe a wide variety of exactions. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(Trailer Marine Transp. Corp. v. Rivera Vazquez)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 977 F.2d 1,)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(5 \(1st Cir. 1992\) \(surveying cases that have regularly "applied)Tj
2.9 Tw T*
(the label `tax'" to a "range of exactions," even those that)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("might not be commonly described as taxes"\).)Tj
1.96 Tw 12 -26 Td
(The Supreme Court has concluded that the AIA uses the)Tj
1.59 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(term "tax" in its broadest possible sense. This is so because)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(21)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
463 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.25 Tw 168 635.1 Td
(We initially explain why we believe that the plain language)Tj
0.97 Tw -12 -13 Td
(of the AIA bars our consideration of this challenge. We then)Tj
0.58 Tw 0 -13 TD
(address the parties' contrary arguments: first those offered by)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(the Secretary \(and largely adopted by the dissent\), then those)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(advanced by plaintiffs.)Tj
144.504 -25.9 Td
(II.)Tj
-0.336 -25.9 Td
(A.)Tj
3.52 Tw -132.168 -26 Td
(We note at the outset the inescapable fact that federal)Tj
1.76 Tw -12 -13 Td
(courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess "only)Tj
2.12 Tw T*
(that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is)Tj
3.42 Tw T*
(not to be expanded by judicial decree." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
214.128 -177.2 Td
(See Kokkonen v.)Tj
2.83 Tw -214.128 -13 Td
(Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 511 U.S. 375, 377 \(1994\))Tj
1.67 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(\(internal citations omitted\). Accordingly, a federal court has)Tj
2.85 Tw T*
(an "independent obligation" to investigate the limits of its)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(subject-matter jurisdiction. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 546)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(U.S. 500, 514 \(2006\). This is so even when the parties "either)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(overlook or elect not to press" the issue, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Henderson v. Shin-)Tj
1.45 Tw T*
(seki)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1202 \(2011\), or attempt to consent to)Tj
1.6 Tw T*
(a court's jurisdiction, )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(see Sosna v. Iowa)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 419 U.S. 393, 398)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(\(1975\). Our obligation to examine our subject-matter jurisdic-)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(tion is triggered whenever that jurisdiction is "fairly in doubt.")Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw T*
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1945 \(2009\).)Tj
2.14 Tw 12 -26 Td
(As part of the Internal Revenue Code, the AIA provides)Tj
1.18 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(person." I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.55 Tw (7421\(a\).)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (2)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
0 Ts ( The parties concede, as they must,)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(that, when applicable, the AIA divests federal courts of)Tj
/T1_2 6 Tf
1.95 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -25.8 Td
(2)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
0 Ts (The Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes a federal court to issue a)Tj
1.84 Tw -10 -11.1 Td
(declaratory judgment "except with respect to Federal taxes." 28 U.S.C.)Tj
0.27 Tw 0 -11.1 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.27 Tw (2201\(a\). In )Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
(Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon)Tj
/T1_0 10 Tf
(, 416 U.S. 725, 732 n.7 \(1974\), the)Tj
0.16 Tw T*
(Court held that "the federal tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment A\
ct)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(is at least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act." Accordingly, our holdi\
ng)Tj
2.44 Tw T*
(as to the Anti-Injunction Act applies equally to plaintiffs' request for\
)Tj
1 Tw T*
(declaratory relief. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -411.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(20)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
464 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.68 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(have no "adequate remedy at law to correct" the continuing)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(constitutional violation.)Tj
0 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Before the district court, the Secretary moved to dismiss the)Tj
0.28 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(case, contending )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
83.54 -62.1 Td
(inter alia)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( that the federal tax Anti-Injunction)Tj
2.66 Tw -83.54 -13.5 Td
(Act \(AIA\), I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.66 Tw (7421\(a\), barred the district court from)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(reaching the merits because the challenged penalty is to "be)Tj
0.37 Tw T*
(assessed and collected" in the same manner as a tax and other)Tj
0.52 Tw T*
(penalties to which the AIA clearly applies. The court rejected)Tj
1.3 Tw T*
(this argument, holding that Congress did not intend to "con-)Tj
3.22 Tw T*
(vert the[se] penalties into taxes for purposes of the Anti-)Tj
0.56 Tw T*
(Injunction Act." The court reasoned that \(1\) Congress did not)Tj
1.69 Tw T*
(specifically extend the term "tax" in the AIA to include the)Tj
0.7 Tw T*
(challenged exactions; and \(2\) the exactions did not qualify as)Tj
0.15 Tw T*
(a "tax" for purposes of the AIA because they "function as reg-)Tj
1.35 Tw T*
(ulatory penalties." After rejecting the AIA argument and the)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(Secretary's other jurisdictional contentions, the district court)Tj
0.58 Tw T*
(concluded that the challenged exactions are "valid exercise[s])Tj
0.72 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(of federal power under the Commerce Clause" and dismissed)Tj
0.02 Tw T*
(the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(be granted.)Tj
2.12 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(Plaintiffs then filed this appeal, asserting that the district)Tj
2.2 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(court erred as a matter of law in upholding the Affordable)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(Care Act. The Secretary argued to the contrary, specifically)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(declining to attack the district court's "threshold determina-)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(tion[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.25 Tw (]" as to "the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act.")Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(The Secretary did, however, maintain that Congress's Taxing)Tj
0.13 Tw T*
(Power under Article I, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.13 Tw (8, cl. 1 of the Constitution authorized)Tj
2.32 Tw T*
(the exactions imposed by the challenged mandates because)Tj
2.41 Tw T*
(those mandates "operate as taxes." Because the Secretary's)Tj
2 Tw T*
(contention as to the constitutionality of the mandates under)Tj
1 Tw T*
(the Taxing Power suggested that the AIA bar might apply to)Tj
0.9 Tw T*
(this suit, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs to)Tj
0.93 Tw T*
(address the applicability of the AIA. In these briefs, both the)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
(Secretary and plaintiffs contend that the AIA does not bar this)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(action. We disagree.)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(19)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
465 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.24 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(vidual mandate. Waddell and Merill assert that, "as part of his)Tj
0.93 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(oversight of the Internal Revenue Service," the Secretary has)Tj
T*
(the "power to collect" the penalties "as part of an individual-)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
([`s] income tax return." They describe the individual mandate)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(as imposing a "penalty in the form of a tax . . . on any tax-)Tj
2.91 Tw T*
(payer" who fails to maintain minimum essential coverage.)Tj
0.46 Tw T*
(They further allege that the "Taxing and Spending Clause . . .)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(only grants Congress the power to impose taxes upon certain)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(purchases, not to impose taxes upon citizens who choose not)Tj
2.01 Tw T*
(to purchase something such as health insurance." Similarly,)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(Waddell and Merrill repeatedly assert that the individual man-)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
(date assesses "a direct tax that is not apportioned according to)Tj
0.91 Tw T*
(Census data or other population-based measurement," in vio-)Tj
1.08 Tw T*
(lation of Congress's Taxing Power. Accordingly, they ask to)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(be "free from improper taxation [that] is likely to cause signif-)Tj
0.51 Tw T*
(icant financial hardships." They also contend that the individ-)Tj
8.33 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(ual mandate exceeds Congress's authority under the)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Commerce Clause of the Constitution.)Tj
2.75 Tw 12 -26.7 Td
(Liberty, a private Christian university located in Lynch-)Tj
2.11 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(burg, Virginia, challenges the "employer mandate" as a tax)Tj
0.09 Tw T*
(that will impose "tax penalties" on it because it has employees)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(who will likely receive a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(Liberty alleges that these "significant penalties" will cause it)Tj
1.92 Tw T*
(to suffer "substantial financial hardship." According to Lib-)Tj
3.8 Tw T*
(erty, the employer mandate constitutes an "unapportioned)Tj
2.01 Tw T*
(direct tax upon employers in violation of" the Constitution,)Tj
0.97 Tw T*
(and "[i]mposition of the tax infringes upon Liberty Universi-)Tj
2.2 Tw T*
(ty's rights to be free from improper taxation." Liberty also)Tj
0.34 Tw T*
(asserts that the employer mandate exceeds Congress's author-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ity under the Commerce Clause.)Tj
2.78 Tw 12 -26.6 Td
(For relief, plaintiffs ask for an injunction restraining all)Tj
3.57 Tw -12 -13.4 Td
(defendants, including the Secretary of the Treasury, from)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
("acting in any manner to implement, enforce, or otherwise act)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(under the authority" of the Affordable Care Act. They seek a)Tj
0.11 Tw T*
(declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and assert that they)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(18)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
466 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.22 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(fails to offer adequate coverage to its full-time employees, the)Tj
3.96 Tw 0 -13 TD
("assessable payment" is calculated by multiplying $2,000)Tj
1.5 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(\(increased yearly by the rate of inflation\), by the number of)Tj
0.03 Tw T*
(total full-time employees, prorated over the number of months)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(an employer is liable. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
116.16 -60.7 Td
( )Tj
0.96 Tw (4980H\(a\), \(c\)\(1\), \(c\)\(5\). If, however,)Tj
0.27 Tw -116.16 -13.1 Td
(the employer does offer adequate insurance coverage, the "as-)Tj
0.76 Tw T*
(sessable payment" is calculated by multiplying $3,000 by the)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(number of employees receiving the "applicable premium tax)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(credit or cost-sharing reduction," prorated on a monthly basis)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(and subject to a cap. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (4980H\(b\)\(1\), \(2\).)Tj
0.55 Tw 12 -26 Td
(A large employer must pay these assessments "upon notice)Tj
1.01 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(and demand by the Secretary." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.01 Tw (4980H\(d\)\(1\). The Secretary)Tj
2.87 Tw T*
(has the authority to assess and collect the exaction in the)Tj
0.2 Tw T*
("same manner as an assessable penalty" provided by subchap-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(ter B of Chapter 68 of the Code. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
144.498 -26 Td
(B.)Tj
3.96 Tw -132.498 -26 Td
(On March 23, 2010, the day the President signed the)Tj
2.22 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(Affordable Care Act into law, plaintiffs filed this action to)Tj
3.85 Tw T*
(enjoin the Secretary and other government officials from)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(enforcing the Act. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege the fol-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(lowing facts.)Tj
4.67 Tw 12 -26 Td
(One of the individual plaintiffs, Michele G. Waddell,)Tj
1.25 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(asserts that she "has made a personal choice not to purchase)Tj
0.85 Tw T*
(health insurance coverage" and does not want to do so in the)Tj
0.07 Tw T*
(future. Waddell maintains that she pays for needed health care)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(services as she uses them. Another individual plaintiff, Joanne)Tj
2.18 Tw T*
(V. Merill, asserts that she too has "elected not to purchase)Tj
1.01 Tw T*
(health insurance coverage" and does not want to do so. Both)Tj
4.42 Tw T*
(Waddell and Merill contend that the individual mandate)Tj
0.43 Tw T*
(requires them "to either pay for health insurance coverage" or)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("face significant penalties.")Tj
0.18 Tw 12 -26 Td
(They seek to enjoin the Secretary from assessing or collect-)Tj
0 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ing the exaction prescribed for failure to comply with the indi-)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 289 504 Td
(17)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
467 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.05 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(specified in" I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
104.706 -8.4 Td
( )Tj
1.05 Tw (6012\(a\)\(1\) \(the amount of income trig-)Tj
0 Tw -104.706 -13 Td
(gering the requirement to file a tax return\). )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(See)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247 5000A\(c\)\(2\),)Tj
1 Tw 0 -13 TD
(\(3\). But the penalty may not exceed the cost of the "national)Tj
0.53 Tw T*
(average premium for qualified health plans" of a certain level)Tj
1.2 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(of coverage. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(c\)\(1\).)Tj
1.48 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Section 5000A\(g\)\(1\) authorizes the Secretary of the Trea-)Tj
0.47 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(sury \("the Secretary"\) to assess and collect the penalty "in the)Tj
1 Tw T*
(same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(chapter 68" of the Internal Revenue Code, which in turn con-)Tj
0.75 Tw T*
(tains penalties that the Secretary is to "assess[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.75 Tw (] and collect[)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.75 Tw (])Tj
0.64 Tw T*
(in the same manner as taxes." )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.64 Tw (6671\(a\). Accordingly, the)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(Affordable Care Act provides the Secretary with all the civil)Tj
2.5 Tw T*
(enforcement tools of the Internal Revenue Code subject to)Tj
1.36 Tw T*
(only one express limitation: the Secretary may not seek col-)Tj
3.44 Tw T*
(lection of the penalty by "fil[ing] [a] notice of lien with)Tj
0.73 Tw T*
(respect to any property" or "levy[ing] on [a taxpayer's] prop-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(erty." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(g\)\(2\)\(B\).)Tj
145.5 -26 Td
(2.)Tj
3.25 Tw -133.5 -26 Td
(The other provision of the Act challenged by plaintiffs)Tj
1.87 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(amends the Internal Revenue Code by adding \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.87 Tw (4980H \(the)Tj
0.31 Tw T*
("employer mandate"\). Pub. L. No. 111-148, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.31 Tw (1513. That pro-)Tj
2.14 Tw T*
(vision imposes an "assessable payment" on "any applicable)Tj
2.31 Tw T*
(large employer" if a health exchange notifies the employer)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(that at least one "full-time employee" obtains an "applicable)Tj
7.63 Tw T*
(premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction." I.R.C.)Tj
1.68 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.68 Tw (4980H\(a\), \(b\). An "applicable premium tax credit or cost-)Tj
1.24 Tw T*
(sharing reduction" consists of either \(1\) a tax credit to assist)Tj
1.57 Tw T*
(a low-income individual with financing premiums for quali-)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(fied health plans or \(2\) a government subsidy to help finance)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(an individual's share of out-of-pocket health care costs, as)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(provided by the Affordable Care Act. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (4980H\(c\)\(3\).)Tj
3 Tw 12 -26 Td
(Section 4980H calculates the assessable payment differ-)Tj
3.38 Tw -12 -13.1 Td
(ently depending on whether the employer offers adequate)Tj
1.8 Tw T*
(health insurance coverage to its employees. If the employer)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(16)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
468 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
0.38 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(See )Tj
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
20.036 -8.4 Td
(id.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.38 Tw (1501\(b\). The individual mandate requires an "appli-)Tj
2.12 Tw -20.036 -13.6 Td
(cable individual" to "ensure" that beginning after 2013, the)Tj
2.65 Tw 0 -13.6 TD
(individual "is covered under minimum essential coverage.")Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(a\). The individual mandate lists a number of)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(health insurance programs that qualify for "minimum essen-)Tj
2.62 Tw T*
(tial coverage": government- and employer-sponsored plans,)Tj
0.78 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(individual market plans, and other health plans recognized as)Tj
1.94 Tw T*
(adequate. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.94 Tw (5000A\(f\)\(1\). If an individual "taxpayer" fails to)Tj
2.17 Tw T*
(obtain the required coverage, the "taxpayer" is subject to a)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
("penalty." \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(1\).)Tj
0.5 Tw 12 -26.9 Td
(The Affordable Care Act uses the Internal Revenue Code's)Tj
0.62 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(existing tax collection system to implement the penalty. Only)Tj
3.65 Tw T*
(a "taxpayer" is subject to the penalty, )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(id.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(, and the Code)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(defines a "taxpayer" as "any person subject to any internal)Tj
1.22 Tw T*
(revenue tax." )Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
(Id.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.22 Tw (7701\(a\)\(14\). A taxpayer must include the)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(penalty payment with his regularly-filed income tax return.)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.55 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(2\). The taxpayer owes the penalty only if he fails)Tj
2.75 Tw T*
(to maintain minimum coverage for a continuous period of)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(three months or longer. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
3.83 Tw (5000A\(e\)\(4\)\(A\). The individual)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(mandate also makes a taxpayer liable for a penalty imposed)Tj
5.5 Tw T*
(on his "dependent," as defined in \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
5.5 Tw (152 of the Code.)Tj
2.25 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
2.25 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(A\). Akin to the joint liability of spouses for)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(income taxes, I.R.C. \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.83 Tw (6013\(d\)\(3\), a taxpayer is also jointly)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(liable for a spouse's penalty if filing a joint income tax return.)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.2 Tw (5000A\(b\)\(3\)\(B\).)Tj
1.47 Tw 12 -26.8 Td
(A taxpayer subject to the penalty owes the greater of: \(1\))Tj
0.35 Tw -12 -13.5 Td
(a "flat dollar amount" equal to $95 for the taxable year begin-)Tj
1.23 Tw T*
(ning 2014, $325 for 2015, $695 for 2016, and $695 indexed)Tj
1.34 Tw T*
(to inflation for every year thereafter; or \(2\) a graduated per-)Tj
0.36 Tw T*
(centage \(1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% every year there-)Tj
3.63 Tw T*
(after\) of the amount by which the "taxpayer's household)Tj
3.52 Tw T*
(income," as defined by the Code, exceeds "gross income)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0.44 Tw 0 -26.5 TD
(\247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
0.44 Tw (1501. Because plaintiffs refer to it as the individual mandate throughou\
t)Tj
1 Tw 0 -11.4 TD
(their complaint and briefs, we often do so as well. )Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -466.05 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(15)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
469 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 279.666 635.1 Td
(OPINION)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
-123.666 -24.7 Td
(DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:)Tj
0.8 Tw 12 -24.8 Td
(Liberty University and certain individuals brought this suit)Tj
1.18 Tw -12 -12.4 Td
(to enjoin, as unconstitutional, enforcement of two provisions)Tj
4.23 Tw 0 -12.4 TD
(of the recently-enacted Patient Protection and Affordable)Tj
0.62 Tw 0 -12.5 TD
(Care Act. The challenged provisions amend the Internal Rev-)Tj
0.29 Tw T*
(enue Code by adding: \(1\) a "penalty" payable to the Secretary)Tj
1.07 Tw T*
(of the Treasury by an individual taxpayer who fails to main-)Tj
1.97 Tw T*
(tain adequate health insurance coverage and \(2\) an "assess-)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(able payment" payable to the Secretary of the Treasury by a)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
("large employer" if at least one of its employees receives a tax)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(credit or government subsidy to offset payments for certain)Tj
0.47 Tw T*
(health-related expenses. The district court upheld these provi-)Tj
4.1 Tw T*
(sions, ruling that both withstood constitutional challenge.)Tj
0.32 Tw T*
(Because this suit constitutes a pre-enforcement action seeking)Tj
2.22 Tw T*
(to restrain the assessment of a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act)Tj
3.25 Tw T*
(strips us of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we must vacate the)Tj
3.88 Tw T*
(judgment of the district court and remand the case with)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.)Tj
146.502 -24.8 Td
(I.)Tj
-2.334 -24.8 Td
(A.)Tj
3.51 Tw -132.168 -24.8 Td
(On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the)Tj
4 Tw -12 -12.5 Td
(Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive bill spanning 900)Tj
0.96 Tw T*
(pages, which institutes numerous changes to the financing of)Tj
2.3 Tw T*
(health care in the United States. )Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
169.44 -369.6 Td
(See)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
( Pub. L. No. 111-148.)Tj
1.58 Tw -169.44 -12.5 Td
(Liberty and some individuals \(collectively "plaintiffs"\) chal-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(lenge only two provisions of the Act.)Tj
145.5 -24.8 Td
(1.)Tj
2.52 Tw -133.5 -24.8 Td
(The first amends the Internal Revenue Code \(sometimes)Tj
1.52 Tw -12 -12.5 Td
("the Code"\) by adding \247)Tj
0 Tw ( )Tj
1.52 Tw (5000A \("the individual mandate"\).)Tj
/T1_3 6 Tf
4.9 Ts (1)Tj
0.56 Tw 4.1 Ts 10 -24.7 Td
(1)Tj
/T1_1 10 Tf
0 Ts (The Affordable Care Act itself refers to the provision as the "Require-)Tj
2.37 Tw -10 -10.6 Td
(ment to maintain minimum essential coverage." Pub. L. No. 111-148,)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -467.85 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(14)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_1 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
470 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
2.72 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington,)Tj
1.28 Tw 0 -13.1 TD
(D.C.; Lawrence A. McAndrews, President and Chief Execu-)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(tive Officer, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHILDREN'S)Tj
3.2 Tw T*
(HOSPITALS, Alexandria, Virginia, for American Hospital)Tj
0.33 Tw T*
(Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Fed-)Tj
0.18 Tw T*
(eration of American Hospitals, National Association of Public)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(Hospitals and Health Systems, Catholic Health Association of)Tj
3.42 Tw T*
(the United States, and National Association of Children's)Tj
6.26 Tw T*
(Hospitals, Amici Supporting Appellees. Kristin Houser,)Tj
2.81 Tw T*
(Adam Berger, Rebecca J. Roe, William Rutzick, SCHRO-)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(ETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER, Seattle, Washington, for)Tj
0.1 Tw T*
(Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of Washington, Amicus Sup-)Tj
0.94 Tw T*
(porting Appellees. Richard L. Rosen, ARNOLD & PORTER)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(LLP, Washington, D.C., for Economic Scholars, Amici Sup-)Tj
1.71 Tw T*
(porting Appellees. Marcia D. Greenberger, Emily J. Martin,)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(Judith G. Waxman, Lisa Codispoti, NATIONAL WOMEN'S)Tj
3.16 Tw T*
(LAW CENTER; Melissa Hart, UNIVERSITY OF COLO-)Tj
4.16 Tw T*
(RADO LAW SCHOOL, Boulder, Colorado, for National)Tj
2.38 Tw T*
(Women's Law Center, American Association of University)Tj
0.81 Tw T*
(Women, Amerian Federation of State, County and Municipal)Tj
1.54 Tw T*
(Employees, American Medical Women's Association, Asian)Tj
1.18 Tw T*
(& Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Black Women's)Tj
1.52 Tw T*
(Health Imperative, Childbirth Connection, Ibis Reproductive)Tj
3.1 Tw T*
(Health, Institute of Science and Human Values, Maryland)Tj
1.9 Tw T*
(Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform, Mental Health)Tj
1 Tw T*
(America, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum,)Tj
2.26 Tw T*
(National Association of Social Workers, National Coalition)Tj
5.1 Tw T*
(for LGBT Health, National Council of Jewish Women,)Tj
0.05 Tw T*
(National Council of Women's Organizations, National Educa-)Tj
2.26 Tw T*
(tion Association, National Latina Institute for Reproductive)Tj
0.78 Tw T*
(Health, Older Women's League, Physicians for Reproductive)Tj
0.14 Tw T*
(Choice and Health, Raising Women's Voices, Sargent Shriver)Tj
2 Tw T*
(National Center on Poverty Law, Southwest Women's Law)Tj
0.24 Tw T*
(Center, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women's Law Cen-)Tj
2.85 Tw 0 -13.2 TD
(ter of Maryland, Incorporated, and Women's Law Project,)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(Amici Supporting Appellees.)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -491.75 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(13)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
471 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.86 Tw 156 635.1 Td
(AMERICAN PROGRESS, Washington, D.C., for American)Tj
1 Tw 0 -13.5 TD
(Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Incor-)Tj
2.33 Tw T*
(porated, American Medical Student Association, Center for)Tj
0.71 Tw T*
(American Progress, d/b/a Doctors for America, National His-)Tj
0.55 Tw T*
(panic Medical Association, and National Physicians Alliance,)Tj
4.86 Tw T*
(Amici Supporting Appellees. Professor Walter Dellinger,)Tj
1.5 Tw T*
(Washington, D.C.; Professor H. Jefferson Powell, GEORGE)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Washing-)Tj
3.28 Tw T*
(ton, D.C., for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House)Tj
0.83 Tw T*
(Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Congressional Leaders)Tj
2 Tw T*
(and Leaders of Committees of Relevant Jurisdiction, Amici)Tj
1.28 Tw T*
(Supporting Appellees. Gillian E. Metzger, Trevor W. Morri-)Tj
2.52 Tw T*
(son, New York, New York; Andrew J. Pincus, Charles A.)Tj
2.28 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(Rothfeld, Paul W. Hughes, Michael B. Kimberly, MAYER)Tj
3.83 Tw T*
(BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Constitutional Law)Tj
2.8 Tw T*
(Professors, Amici Supporting Appellees. Rochelle Bobroff,)Tj
5.34 Tw T*
(Simon Lazarus, NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW)Tj
2.95 Tw T*
(CENTER, Washington, D.C., for American Association of)Tj
4 Tw T*
(People with Disabilities, The ARC of the United States,)Tj
4.32 Tw T*
(Breast Cancer Action, Families USA, Friends of Cancer)Tj
0.61 Tw T*
(Research, March of Dimes Foundation, Mental Health Amer-)Tj
1.21 Tw T*
(ica, National Breast Cancer Coalition, National Organization)Tj
3.9 Tw T*
(for Rare Disorders, National Partnership for Women and)Tj
4.66 Tw T*
(Families, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National)Tj
0.77 Tw T*
(Women's Health Network, and The Ovarian Cancer National)Tj
3.66 Tw T*
(Alliance, Amici Supporting Appellees. Sheree R. Kanner,)Tj
1.91 Tw T*
(Catherine E. Stetson, Dominic F. Perella, Michael D. Kass,)Tj
1.75 Tw T*
(Sara A. Kraner, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Washington,)Tj
2.28 Tw T*
(D.C.; Melinda Reid Hatton, Maureen D. Mudron, AMERI-)Tj
3.12 Tw T*
(CAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C.; Ivy)Tj
0 Tw T*
(Baer, Karen Fisher, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDI-)Tj
3.21 Tw T*
(CAL COLLEGES, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey G. Micklos,)Tj
1.15 Tw T*
(FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS, Washington,)Tj
0.28 Tw T*
(D.C.; Larry S. Gage, President, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION)Tj
6.26 Tw T*
(OF PUBLIC HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS,)Tj
5.05 Tw T*
(Washington, D.C.; Lisa Gilden, Vice President, General)Tj
4.42 Tw T*
(Counsel/Compliance Officer, THE CATHOLIC HEALTH)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 504 TD
(12)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
472 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 175.422 635.1 Td
(Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.)Tj
3.32 Tw -19.422 -51.9 Td
(Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Motz)Tj
2.41 Tw 0 -13.4 TD
(wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn concurred. Judge)Tj
1.41 Tw T*
(Wynn wrote a concurring opinion. Judge Davis wrote a dis-)Tj
1.2 Tw T*
(senting opinion.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
120.996 -44.6 Td
(COUNSEL)Tj
7.06 Tw -120.996 -26.5 Td
(ARGUED:)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
55.992 -171.6 Td
( Mathew D. Staver, LIBERTY COUNSEL,)Tj
7 Tw -55.992 -13.4 Td
(Orlando, Florida, for Appellants. Neal Kumar Katyal,)Tj
0.8 Tw T*
(UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-)Tj
1.25 Tw T*
(ton, D.C., for Appellees. )Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
(ON BRIEF:)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
( Anita L. Staver, LIB-)Tj
1.43 Tw T*
(ERTY COUNSEL, Orlando, Florida; Stephen M. Crampton,)Tj
1.55 Tw T*
(Mary E. McAlister, LIBERTY COUNSEL, Lynchburg, Vir-)Tj
0.32 Tw T*
(ginia, for Appellants. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,)Tj
0.08 Tw T*
(Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark)Tj
3.07 Tw T*
(B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Samantha L. Chaifetz, UNITED)Tj
1.66 Tw T*
(STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;)Tj
2.42 Tw T*
(Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Vir-)Tj
3.61 Tw T*
(ginia, for Appellees. Joel Spector, MOUNTAIN STATES)Tj
0.4 Tw T*
(LEGAL FOUNDATION, Lakewood, Colorado, for Mountain)Tj
5.12 Tw 0 -13.3 TD
(States Legal Foundation, Amicus Supporting Appellants.)Tj
4.33 Tw T*
(Brian S. Koukoutchos, Mandeville, Louisiana; Charles J.)Tj
3.42 Tw T*
(Cooper, David H. Thompson, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC,)Tj
1.83 Tw T*
(Washington, D.C., for Revere America Foundation, Amicus)Tj
6.82 Tw T*
(Supporting Appellants. Rebecca Glenberg, AMERICAN)Tj
0.88 Tw T*
(CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Vir-)Tj
0.67 Tw T*
(ginia; Daniel Mach, Heather L. Weaver, AMERICAN CIVIL)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(LIBERTIES UNION, Washington, D.C.; Andrew D. Beck,)Tj
3.8 Tw T*
(Brigitte Amiri, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,)Tj
2.16 Tw T*
(New York, New York, for American Civil Liberties Union)Tj
0.04 Tw T*
(and American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Incorporated,)Tj
2.55 Tw T*
(Amici Supporting Appellees. Ian Millhiser, CENTER FOR)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -33.45 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -125.45 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 445 655.5 Td
(11)Tj
-211.546 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
473 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.004 -28.8 Td
(HILDBIRTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ONNECTION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (BIS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz -8.004 -13.2 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EPRODUCTIVE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NSTITUTE OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (CIENCE AND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UMAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( V)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ALUES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARYLAND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OALITION FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EFORM)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SIAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ACIFIC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORUM)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OCIAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORKERS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OALITION FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( LGBT H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNCIL OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EWISH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNCIL OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( O)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RGANIZATIONS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (DUCATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -3.7 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -9.5 Td
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATINA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NSTITUTE FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EPRODUCTIVE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; O)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LDER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EAGUE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HYSICIANS FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EPRODUCTIVE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HOICE AND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AISING)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( V)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OICES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARGENT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HRIVER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (ON)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OVERTY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUTHWEST)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IDER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(O)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (PPORTUNITIES FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARYLAND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ROJECT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
34.608 -18 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellees.)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 147.012 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 0 Ts -142.878 -23.5 Td
(Appeal from the United States District Court)Tj
-14.418 -11.8 Td
(for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.)Tj
24.684 -11.8 Td
(Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge.)Tj
37.338 -11.9 Td
(\(6:10-cv-00015-nkm-mfu\))Tj
7.194 -23.6 Td
(Argued: May 10, 2011)Tj
-13.662 -23.8 Td
(Decided: September 8, 2011)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -188.5 cm
0 0 m
0 172.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -378.2 cm
0 0 m
0 172.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -385.15 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 156 655.5 Td
(10)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
474 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.664 -28.8 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HRISTOPHER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UHM)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor)Tj
-8.664 -13.2 Td
(of Public Policy and Economics,)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(Department of Economics,)Tj
T*
(University of Virginia; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ONATHAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (KINNER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, Dartmouth College,)Tj
T*
(and Professor of Community and)Tj
T*
(Family Medicine, Dartmouth)Tj
T*
(Medical School; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. K)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATHERINE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (WARTZ)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor, Department of)Tj
T*
(Health Policy and Management,)Tj
T*
(Harvard School of Public Health;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. K)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENNETH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARNER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Dean of)Tj
T*
(the School of Public Health and)Tj
T*
(Avedis Donabedian Distinguished)Tj
T*
(University Professor of Public)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -11.9 Td
(Health, University of Michigan;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AUL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( N. V)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (E)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Senior Fellow, Center on Budget)Tj
T*
(and Policy Priorities; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TEPHEN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(Z)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UCKERMAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senior Fellow, The)Tj
T*
(Urban Institute; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDERATION OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TATE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNTY AND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UNICIPAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(E)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MPLOYEES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDICAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SIAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( &)Tj
T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ACIFIC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SLANDER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORUM)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LACK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MPERATIVE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -212.5 cm
0 0 m
0 196.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -426.2 cm
0 0 m
0 196.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -433.15 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 450.5 655.5 Td
(9)Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
475 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.664 -28.8 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICHARD)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( J. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (URNANE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
-8.664 -13.2 Td
(Thompson Professor of Education)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(and Society, Harvard University;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M. N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICHOLS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, George)Tj
T*
(Mason University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AROLD)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLLACK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Helen Ross Professor of)Tj
T*
(Social Service Administration,)Tj
T*
(University of Chicago; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATTHEW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ABIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Edward G. and)Tj
T*
(Nancy S. Jordan Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, University of)Tj
T*
(California-Berkeley, 2001)Tj
T*
(Recipient of the John Bates Clark)Tj
T*
(Medal for the most influential)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -7.9 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -5.3 Td
(American economist under age 40;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AMES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B. R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EBITZER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor)Tj
T*
(of Economics, Management, and)Tj
T*
(Public Policy, Boston University)Tj
T*
(School of Management; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICHAEL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EICH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, University of)Tj
T*
(California at Berkeley; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HOMAS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor, UCLA)Tj
T*
(School of Public Health; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EREDITH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OSENTHAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Department)Tj
T*
(of Health Policy and Management,)Tj
T*
(Harvard University, Harvard)Tj
T*
(School of Public Health;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -192.7 cm
0 0 m
0 176.9 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -386.6 cm
0 0 m
0 176.9 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -393.55 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 156 655.5 Td
(8)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
476 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.664 -28.8 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. V)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IVIAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (O)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Baker Institute)Tj
-8.664 -13.2 Td
(Chair in Health Economics and)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(Professor of Economics, Rice)Tj
T*
(University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OHN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( F. H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLAHAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Director, Health Policy Research)Tj
T*
(Center, The Urban Institute; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORWITZ)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of Law)Tj
T*
(and Co-Director of the Program in)Tj
T*
(Law & Economics, University of)Tj
T*
(Michigan School of Law; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AWRENCE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( K)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATZ)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Elisabeth Allen)Tj
T*
(Professor of Economics, Harvard)Tj
T*
(University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RANK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EVY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Rose)Tj
T*
(Professor of Urban Economics,)Tj
T*
(Department of Urban Studies and)Tj
T*
(Planning, MIT; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ETER)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 100 Tz 181.62 -7.9 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -5.3 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (INDERT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Distinguished Research)Tj
T*
(Professor of Economics,)Tj
T*
(University of California, Davis;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. E)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RIC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ASKIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Albert O.)Tj
T*
(Hirschman Professor of Social)Tj
T*
(Science at the Institute for)Tj
T*
(Advanced Study, Princeton)Tj
T*
(University, 2007 Nobel Laureate;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ONHEIT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor)Tj
T*
(of Health Economics, School of)Tj
T*
(Public Health, University of)Tj
T*
(Medicine & Dentistry of New)Tj
T*
(Jersey; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARILYN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OON)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Vice)Tj
T*
(President and Director Health)Tj
T*
(Program, American Institutes for)Tj
T*
(Research;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -219.1 cm
0 0 m
0 203.3 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -439.4 cm
0 0 m
0 203.3 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -446.35 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 450.5 655.5 Td
(7)Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
477 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.664 -28.8 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (INDA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( J. B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LUMBERG)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senior)Tj
-8.664 -13.2 Td
(Fellow, The Urban Institute,)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(Health Policy Center; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EONARD)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E. B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (URMAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Daniel)Tj
T*
(Patrick Moynihan Professor of)Tj
T*
(Public Affairs at the Maxwell)Tj
T*
(School, Syracuse University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MITABH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HANDRA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Public Policy Kennedy School of)Tj
T*
(Government, Harvard University;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICHAEL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HERNEW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor,)Tj
T*
(Department of Health Care Policy,)Tj
T*
(Harvard Medical School; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HILIP)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OOK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, ITT/Sanford)Tj
T*
(Professor of Public Policy,)Tj
T*
(Professor of Economics, Duke)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -11.9 Td
(University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LAUDIA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLDIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Henry Lee Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, Harvard University;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ROSS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Department of)Tj
T*
(Health Policy and Management,)Tj
T*
(Mailman School of Public Health,)Tj
T*
(Columbia University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.)Tj
T*
(J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ONATHAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RUBER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, MIT; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ACK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ADLEY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Associate Dean for)Tj
T*
(Finance and Planning, Professor)Tj
T*
(and Senior Health Services)Tj
T*
(Researcher, College of Health and)Tj
T*
(Human Services, George Mason)Tj
T*
(University;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -212.5 cm
0 0 m
0 196.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -426.2 cm
0 0 m
0 196.7 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -433.15 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 156 655.5 Td
(6)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
478 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.664 -28.8 Td
(MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OSPITAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
-8.664 -13.2 Td
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDICAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLLEGES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDERATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OSPITALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UBLIC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OSPITALS)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (AND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (YSTEMS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATHOLIC)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TATES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HILDREN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OSPITALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HRISTINE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( O. G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (REGOIRE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Governor; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AVID)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UTLER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Deputy, Otto Eckstein Professor of)Tj
T*
(Applied Economics, Harvard)Tj
T*
(University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENRY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARON)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Senior Fellow, Economic Studies)Tj
T*
(Bruce and Virginia MacLaury)Tj
T*
(Chair, The Brookings Institution;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -7.9 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -5.3 Td
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EORGE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (KERLOF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Koshland)Tj
T*
(Professor of Economics,)Tj
T*
(University of California-Berkeley,)Tj
T*
(2001 Nobel Laureate; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TUART)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LTMAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Sol C. Chaikin Professor)Tj
T*
(of National Health Policy,)Tj
T*
(Brandeis University; D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. K)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENNETH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RROW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Joan Kenney Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics and Professor of)Tj
T*
(Operations Research, Stanford)Tj
T*
(University 1972 Nobel Laureate;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (. S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (USAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (THEY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Economics, Harvard University,)Tj
T*
(2007 Recipient of the John Bates)Tj
T*
(Clark Medal for the most)Tj
T*
(influential American economist)Tj
T*
(under age 40;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -232.3 cm
0 0 m
0 216.5 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -465.8 cm
0 0 m
0 216.5 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -472.75 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 450.5 655.5 Td
(5)Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
479 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
8.004 -28.8 Td
(OBERT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E. A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NDREWS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
-8.004 -13.2 Td
(Representative, Ranking Member,)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(Education and Workforce)Tj
T*
(Subcommittee on Health; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERROLD)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ADLER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative, Ranking)Tj
T*
(Member, Subcommittee on)Tj
T*
(Constitution; G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EORGE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILLER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Representative, Ranking Member,)Tj
T*
(Education and the Workforce)Tj
T*
(Committee; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OHN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ONYERS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.,)Tj
T*
(Representative, Ranking Member,)Tj
T*
(Committee on the Judiciary; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ACK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(M. B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ALKIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Knight Professor of)Tj
T*
(Constitutional Law and the First)Tj
T*
(Amendment, Yale Law School;)Tj
T*
(G)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILLIAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ETZGER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
T*
(Law, Columbia Law School;)Tj
T*
(T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (REVOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W. M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORRISON)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Professor of)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -11.9 Td
(Law, Columbia Law School;)Tj
T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EOPLE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ITH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ISABILITIES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RC)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (THE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(U)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TATES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (REAST)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANCER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (CTION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AMILIES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( USA; F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RIENDS)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANCER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ESEARCH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARCH)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IMES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNDATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (REAST)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANCER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OALITION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( O)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RGANIZATION)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ISORDERS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARTNERSHIP)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (AND)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AMILIES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENIOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ITIZENS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ETWORK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(O)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (VARIAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANCER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LLIANCE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -238.9 cm
0 0 m
0 223.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -479 cm
0 0 m
0 223.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -485.95 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 156 655.5 Td
(4)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
480 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
6.672 -28.8 Td
(ATRICK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EAHY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senator,)Tj
-6.672 -13.2 Td
(Committee on the Judiciary Chair;)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARBARA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IKULSKI)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senator, HELP)Tj
T*
(Subcommittee on Retirement and)Tj
T*
(Aging Chair; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OHN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( D.)Tj
T*
(R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OCKEFELLER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, IV, Senator,)Tj
T*
(Committee on Commerce Chair;)Tj
T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TENY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OYER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative,)Tj
T*
(House Democratic Whip; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AMES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( E.)Tj
T*
(C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LYBURN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative,)Tj
T*
(Democratic Assistant Leader; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OHN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(B. L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARSON)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative, Chair)Tj
T*
(of Democratic Caucus; X)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AVIER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ECERRA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative, Vice)Tj
T*
(Chair of Democratic Caucus; J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OHN)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 100 Tz 181.62 -7.9 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -5.3 Td
(D. D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (INGELL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative,)Tj
T*
(Sponsor of House Health Care)Tj
T*
(Reform Legislation; H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENRY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A.)Tj
T*
(W)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AXMAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative, Ranking)Tj
T*
(Member, Committee on Energy)Tj
T*
(and Commerce; F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RANK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ALLONE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(J)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (., Representative, Ranking)Tj
T*
(Member, Commerce)Tj
T*
(Subcommittee on Health; S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANDER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(M. L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EVIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Representative, Ranking)Tj
T*
(Member, Committee on Ways and)Tj
T*
(Means; F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ORTNEY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ETE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TARK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Representative, Ranking Member,)Tj
T*
(Ways and Means Subcommittee)Tj
T*
(on Health;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -205.9 cm
0 0 m
0 190.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -413 cm
0 0 m
0 190.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -419.95 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 450.5 655.5 Td
(3)Tj
-217.046 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
481 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
156 635.1 Td
( )Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
10.668 -28.8 Td
(OUNTAIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TATES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EGAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz -10.668 -13.2 Td
(F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNDATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EVERE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(F)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNDATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_2 12 Tf
29.928 -18 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellants,)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
-29.928 -18 Td
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IVIL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IBERTIES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IVIL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IBERTIES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NION OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(V)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IRGINIA)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (URSES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (CADEMY)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDIATRICS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(I)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDICAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TUDENT)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (FOR)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ROGRESS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, d/b/a Doctors)Tj
T*
(for America; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ISPANIC)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 100 Tz 181.62 -9.7 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -3.5 Td
(M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EDICAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (SSOCIATION)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HYSICIANS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LLIANCE)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARRY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EID)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Senate Majority Leader; N)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANCY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ELOSI)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, House Democratic Leader;)Tj
T*
(D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICK)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( D)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (URBIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senator, Assistant)Tj
T*
(Majority Leader; C)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (HARLES)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (CHUMER)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senator, Conference)Tj
T*
(Vice Chair; P)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATTY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (URRAY)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Conference Secretary; M)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AX)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(B)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AUCUS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Senator, Committee on)Tj
T*
(Finance Chair; T)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OM)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_0 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARKIN)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(Senator, Committee on Health,)Tj
T*
(Education, Labor and Pensions)Tj
T*
(Chair;)Tj
/T1_1 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -7.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -190.9 cm
0 0 m
0 175.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -383 cm
0 0 m
0 175.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -389.95 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
BT
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 0 Ts 156 655.5 Td
(2)Tj
77.454 0 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
240.175 -136.5 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_0 11 Tf
1.1 Tw 100 Tz ( v. G)Tj
/T1_0 7.7 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.2 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 156 -140.25 cm
0 0 m
300 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
endstream
endobj
482 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 656.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 19 Tf
1.9 Tw 84.2 Tz -114.766 -40 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0 Tw -66.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
7.332 -104.8 Td
(IBERTY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NIVERSITY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NCORPORATED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
-7.332 -13.2 Td
(a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation;)Tj
0 -13.2 TD
(M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ICHELE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G. W)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ADDELL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; J)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OANNE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( V.)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERRILL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
71.652 -18 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
6.684 -18 Td
(and)Tj
-78.336 -18 Td
(M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARTHA)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A. N)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; D)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AVID)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (TEIN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
T*
(M.D.; P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AUSANIAS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (LEXANDER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( T. B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENDORF)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; D)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ELEGATE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(K)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATHY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (YRON)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; J)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EFF)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ELGESON)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
126.984 -18 Td
(Plaintiffs,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
-44.484 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
135.57 -15 Td
(No. 10-2347)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -36.45 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -1.7 Td
(T)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IMOTHY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( G)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EITHNER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Secretary of)Tj
T*
(the Treasury of the United States,)Tj
T*
(in his official capacity; K)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATHLEEN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EBELIUS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Secretary of the United)Tj
T*
(States Department of Health and)Tj
T*
(Human Services, in her official)Tj
T*
(capacity; H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ILDA)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L. S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLIS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, Secretary)Tj
T*
(of the United States Department of)Tj
T*
(Labor, in her official capacity;)Tj
T*
(E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (RIC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( H. H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OLDER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, J)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (R)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (., Attorney)Tj
T*
(General of the United States, in)Tj
T*
(his official capacity,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
57.288 -18 Td
(Defendants - Appellees.)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 124.332 -26.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -83.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -274.7 cm
0 0 m
0 182.9 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -472.95 cm
0 0 m
173 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -474.6 cm
0 0 m
0 182.9 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -481.55 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 209.3565063 778 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw 0 Ts /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
483 0 obj
<>>>/Resources<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Subtype/Form>>stream
BT
0 g
0 i
/C2_0 10 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 18.611 -7.842 Td
[<0026004800550057004C0052005500440055004C0003>1<004A005500440051005700480047000F000300310052005900480050004500480055000300150019000F000300150013001400150003>]TJ
-18.611 -12 Td
[<00390044004600440057004800470003>1<0045005C00030036005800530055004800500048000300260052005800550057000F000300310052005900480050004500480055000300150019000F00030015001300140015>]TJ
ET
endstream
endobj
484 0 obj
<>
endobj
485 0 obj
[487 0 R]
endobj
486 0 obj
<>stream
H\j0~=&XV|M N
,d෯ )T`xvИ~ݍ3uюә/Ҍt;Z|ZtcTxqBϼ7Bt63%TUzik;0iyx_b)Qɶ]k.?GglN}.o}ydIж(@EoyCg4qH(#@B__.A9 $@{ՠ] tV3 .1@/KKL$1@܅em-c_wbaϷ
ЎD 峂
endstream
endobj
487 0 obj
<>
endobj
488 0 obj
<>
endobj
489 0 obj
<>
endobj
490 0 obj
<>stream
Hj 0
endstream
endobj
491 0 obj
<>stream
H\U tW~?I51"}-!!vĒҦ[XhUE
uv?&{
>UO2#2GN$R^qFiθ?t<$U}k)&@Cf}0wi$@a&ҽgsְ9>kZ~ƞާM?z. q>?yt~G*3f2n)K`Q6'ˈV*XĸLcTTd^I>$i
}g/=ˣE 0z *5[;wEW֟X(8{茾Xn8P͈0( T,V"a2
Ruu7
z! ۰W NUҘsv4tۑJ"
apOO#P$36Bwc;qVht{N㬍*%F0+yd%N뙱HT:E.nGp_5Vk/y4FwBl`6~`i)kdqJ䖆W0u+#M
UV(!c&R"&j&2Cp2I#zofOGa5Ny2?Wj6;V* mC1S*S=