Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
District of Columbia
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius; U.S. Department of Treasury and its Secretary, Timothy Geithner
Richard J. Leon
This case challenges the individual mandate provision of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Commerce Clause grounds. Plaintiff currently does not request health insurance nor does he need it in the foreseeable future. Plaintiff claims the PPACA is an intrusion of his
Status: The Complaint was filed on July 26 and the Defendants filed their Reply on October 25, challenging the Plaintiff's motive to designate his case as related to American Association of Physicians and Surgeons v. Sebelius, as well as six other cases. The Reply alleges there is no ground for which the lawsuits "share any common issues of fact." On November 3, the Plaintiff responded to this Reply, noting the two lawsuits in question do share common issues of fact, the most important being that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Therefore, the Plaintiff's case should not be randomly assigned to an unrelated court.
On November 12, the Defendants have replied to the Plaintiff's Response, arguing again the case is unrelated and cannot be exempt per local rule of Random Reassignment. Then, on November 15, a Motion to Dismiss was filed by the Defendants, noting Plaintiffs have no standing as the Federal courts only have limited jurisdiction in matters such as this. Since the main issue at stake is that the Plaintiff refuses to buy health insurance, as he has done for the past several years, the jurisdiction of the courts does not cover "political disputes or strain to displace judgments reached through the democratic process."