Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Halbig v Sebelius - Government Notice of Supplemental Authority

Halbig v Sebelius - Government Notice of Supplemental Authority

Ratings: (0)|Views: 108|Likes:
A group of small business owners (and individuals) in six states filed a lawsuit on May 2, 2013 against the federal government over an IRS regulation imposed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), a regulation that will force the plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fines, cut back employees’ hours, or severely burden their businesses.

This document is the Government Notice of Supplemental Authority.

View more about the case at cei.org/obamacare.
A group of small business owners (and individuals) in six states filed a lawsuit on May 2, 2013 against the federal government over an IRS regulation imposed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), a regulation that will force the plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fines, cut back employees’ hours, or severely burden their businesses.

This document is the Government Notice of Supplemental Authority.

View more about the case at cei.org/obamacare.

More info:

Published by: Competitive Enterprise Institute on Mar 14, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Rm. 7235 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 MBS:ABKlein 145-16-7245 Tel: (202) 514-1597 Email: alisa.klein@usdoj.gov
 March 12, 2014 Mr. Mark Langer Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 333 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Re:
 Halbig
 
v.
 
Sebelius
, No. 14-5018 (D.C. Cir.) (oral argument scheduled for March 25, 2014) Dear Mr. Langer: We respectfully submit a supplemental authority that bears on plaintiffs’ assertion, made for the first time in reply, that “[i]t does not matter that this ‘is not a class action’” and that the Court could extinguish the tax-credit claims of individuals who live in “states like Texas.” Pl. Reply 26. In
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp
., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), and prior decisions, the Supreme Court held that the  protections for non-parties are grounded in Due Process. Even when (unlike here) a suit is a class action, “before an absent class member’s right of action [is] extinguishable due process require[s] that the member ‘receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation’” and “‘an opportunity to remove himself from the class.’”
 Id 
. at 848 (quoting
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,
 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985)). Moreover, there is a “constitutional requirement” that a “‘named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members.’”
 Id 
. at 848 n.24 (quoting
Shutts
, 472 U.S. at 812). Plaintiffs did not seek to represent a class, and their suit could not satisfy these constitutional requirements. For millions of people across the country, premium tax credits are not burdens to be avoided but federal benefits that they need to afford health insurance.
USCA Case #14-5018 Document #1483516 Filed: 03/12/2014 Page 1 of 3
 
 Sincerely, s/ Alisa B. Klein Alisa B. Klein Counsel for the Appellees
USCA Case #14-5018 Document #1483516 Filed: 03/12/2014 Page 2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->