DOJ Asks Judge to Dismiss Kinder's Political Lawsuit, Citing Numerous Problems With Standing and Facts
This afternoon in federal court, the Department of Justice asked a federal judge to dimiss the amendment complaint filed last year by Lt. Governor Peter Kinder and a few other plaintiffs as part of his Health Care Inaction media tour. In a memorandum detailing the reasons why the suit should be dismissed (embedded below the break), the DOJ details a host of problems of standing for Kinder and his co-plaintiffs, and an embarrassing list of factual errors included in their complaint, which was drafted and filed by GOP attorney Thor Hearne.
Essentially, the DOJ argues that Kinder and his co-plaintiffs lack the standing to make a number of their claims, are improperly claiming to have been harmed by parts of the law that haven't yet taken effect, and say their rights are being trampled by provisions that exist only in their imagination.
A detailed summary of the feds' arguments may be found below the jump -- along with all documents filed tonight -- but here are a few lowlights:
- In three counts, Kinder's complaint alleges that the minimum coverage provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will, beginning in 2014, require a young woman -- who just happens to be a campaign staffer for Rep. Vicky Hartzler -- to buy more health insurance than the catastrophic coverage insurance she has and desires to retain. However, Kinder's co-plaintiff is only 21 years old, and the ACA expressly provides that a catastrophic coverage policy can satisfy the minimum coverage requirement for anyone under 30.
- In one count, Kinder's complaint argues that the ACA extends special treatment for Medicare Advantage participants in parts of Florida. But the law, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), does no such thing.
- In another count, Kinder's complaint argues that the ACA establishes panels that will prohibit them from receiving medical treatment that they and their physicians decide upon unless the panels agree. But the law does no such thing, and Kinder's team cannot demonstrate any jury from the provisions Congress actually did enact.
- Finally, Kinder and his co-plaintiffs repeatedly makes claims about portions of the lawsuit that will not take effect for years, and makes claims that could only be brought by the state.
Here's a more detailed summary, pulled from the introduction of the memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss:
Plaintiffs’ challenges to an assortment of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “the Act”)1 are misguided.
Counts One and Two challenge ACA provisions that are alleged to violate the sovereignty interests of the State of Missouri. None of the plaintiffs is the State of Missouri (see Amended Complaint (“Am. Comp.”) at page 2), and none has standing to assert any claims Missouri might have against these provisions. See Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118 (1939). Plaintiffs similarly lack standing to assert Counts Three and Four, both of which argue that the ACA will impose expenses on Missouri and that, as taxpayers, plaintiffs share in that alleged injury. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006).
In counts Five, Six, and Nine plaintiff Samantha Hill alleges that the minimum coverage provision of the ACA will, beginning in 2014, require her to buy more health insurance than the catastrophic coverage insurance she has and desires to retain. However, Hill admits that she is only 21 years old, Am. Comp. ¶ 18, and section 1302(e) of the ACA expressly provides that a catastrophic coverage policy can satisfy the minimum coverage requirement for anyone under 30.
In Count Seven, plaintiffs Dale Morris, Robert Osborn, and Geraldine Osborn challenge the ACA because (they argue) it extends special treatment with respect to Medicare Advantage benefits to similarly situated Medicare recipients in parts of Florida. As amended by the HCERA, the ACA does no such thing.
In Count Eight, plaintiffs challenge the ACA because (they argue) it establishes panels that will prohibit them from receiving medical treatment that they and their physicians decide upon unless the panels agree. Here too, the ACA does no such thing, and plaintiffs have demonstrated no injury from the provisions Congress actually did enact.
The defects in plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the ACA should not be overlooked merely because the constitutional issues they seek to raise are important:
We have been asked to decide an important question of constitutional law concerning the Commerce Clause. But before we do so, we must find that the question is presented in a “case” or “controversy” that is, in James Madison's words, “of a Judiciary Nature.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 430 (M. Farrand ed.1966). That requires plaintiffs, as the parties now asserting federal jurisdiction, to carry the burden of establishing their standing under Article III.
DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S. at 342. The plaintiffs here have not carried that burden.
Have your eyes glazed over yet? Good, 'cause here are the full docs. Enjoy.
