pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On January31, 2011, oral argument was heard on Defendants’ Motion. Uponconsideration of the Motion, Opposition, Reply, the argumentspresented by the parties in open court, and the entire recordherein, and for the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismissis
.The present litigation is one of many similar lawsuitschallenging the Affordable Care Act in United States DistrictCourts around the country. The controversy surrounding thislegislation is significant, as is the public’s interest in thesubstantive reforms contained in the Act. It is highly likely thata decision by the United States Supreme Court will be required toresolve the constitutional and statutory issues which have beenraised. Needless to say, this Court’s personal views on the
In their August 20, 2010, Motion to Dismiss, Defendantsalso moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing, that this casewas not ripe for judicial review, and that this case was barred bythe Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421. See Defs.’ Mot. at 9-16[Dkt. No. 15]. On January 21, 2011, Defendants filed a Noticestating that they do not intend to pursue their Rule 12(b)(1)arguments. See Notice Regarding Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 34]. TheCourt therefore will deem the Defendants’ arguments concerning theAnti-Injunction Act waived and will not consider them. However,because the parties cannot waive any defect in this Court’sjurisdiction, the arguments concerning standing and ripeness willstill be addressed. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1945,173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot beforfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly indoubt.”) (citations omitted).
Case 1:10-cv-00950-GK Document 39 Filed 02/22/11 Page 2 of 64