Plaintiffs challenge provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct, alleging that the Act violates the Constitution and various statutes. Plaintiffsallege, for example, that the Act unlawfully creates a “private Presidential Army,”Compl. at 12, and that the Act violates equal protection by taxing tanning salons because this amounts to a tax on “‘White’ Americans,” Compl. at 31.The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. R. 31. Thecourt explained that, although plaintiffs challenged a series of the Act’s provisions,they failed to show injury resulting from any of the challenged provisions. The courtheld that many of their claims were, “at best, generalized grievances for whichPlaintiffs have no standing.”
. at 15. The court further held that “neither theComplaint nor the supporting documents nor the voluminous briefs sufficiently allege — or for that matter, allege at all — that Plaintiffs will be subject to the Act’sIndividual mandate provision.”
. at 17;
cf. Purpura v. Bushkin, Gaimes, Gains, Jonas & Stream,
317 Fed. Appx. 263, 266 (3d Cir 2009) (discussing plaintiff Purpura’s “abusive and vexatious litigation in this Circuit”).
Plaintiffs appealed and filed their opening brief on June 10, 2011. They nowask this Court for emergency relief that would enjoin application of the statute.However, their
motion fails to show any injury, much less the imminent and2
Case: 11-2303 Document: 003110582691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2011