Defendant's Response 210cv11156 ED Mich

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER; JANN )DeMARS; JOHN CECI; STEVEN HYDER; ) Case No. 2:10-cv-11156and SALINA HYDER, ))

DEFENDANTS’

RESPONSE TO

Plaintiffs, )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

v. )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT

)BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, in his ) Hon. George C. Steehofficial capacity as President of the United )States; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her ) Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalenofficial capacity as Secretary, United States )Department of Health and Human Services; )ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official )capacity as Attorney General of the United )States; TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his )official capacity as Secretary, United States )Department of Treasury, ))Defendants. )__________________________________________)

Case 2:10-cv-11156-GCS-RSW Document 12 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 46

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iiiISSUES PRESENTED.....................................................................................................................xCONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ................................................. xiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................8I. THIS COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ............................9A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing Because the Minimum Coverage ProvisionDoes Not Inflict Any Actual or Imminent Injury ........................................91. Requirements for Standing ..............................................................92. Plaintiffs Cannot Show an Injury in Fact ......................................10B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Unripe ....................................................................13C. The Anti-Injunction Act Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims

......................................14II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THEY ARE LIKELY TOSUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONIS DENIED ............................................................................................................16III. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SHOW A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THEMERITS .................................................................................................................18A. The Minimum Coverage Provision Is a Valid Exercise of Congress’sPower to Regulate Interstate Commerce. ..................................................181. The Minimum Coverage Provision Prevents Cost-Shiftingin the Health Care Market, and Therefore Regulates EconomicActivities That Substantially Affect Interstate Commerce ...........212. The Minimum Coverage Provision Is an EssentialPart of the Act’s Broader Regulatory Scheme ...............................24B. The Minimum Coverage Provision Is Constitutional as an Exercise

Case 2:10-cv-11156-GCS-RSW Document 12 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 46

ii

of the Power to Tax and Spend to Provide for the General Welfare .........27IV. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTERESTWEIGH STRONGLY AGAINST GRANTING PRELIMINARY RELIEF ........31CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................32

Case 2:10-cv-11156-GCS-RSW Document 12 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 46