The parties that filed a Michigan challenge to the federal health reform law passed last year have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision deeming the law constitutional.

The Thomas More Law Center filed the request, asking the highest court in the nation to review a U.S. Appeals court decision on President Barack Obama‘s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, according to Reuters.

Earlier this year, Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, asked the court to ship the traditional review process of lower federal courts and take over his state’s challenge of the federal law. But the Supreme Court refused, saying the winding appeals court process is important.

The PPACA has been the subject of more than 20 challenges, and so far federal courts have been slit on whether the law is legal or whether it exceeds Congress’ authority under the U.S. Constitution.

The law center’s challenge, filed March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed the law, wants the court to strike down the law, arguing that Congress exceeded its legislative authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution with the provision in the heath reform law forcing Americans, starting in January 2014, to either buy health insurance or face a fine.

The U.S. Justice Department, arguing on behalf of the Obama Administration, says the law is necessary because the costs associated with uninsured Americans create a national crisis worthy of Congress’ intervention.

The final status of the law will likely be decided by the Supreme Court at some point.

Apr 7th 2010, 10:37

Court orders granting of temporary licence to Chemimart

Mike Wilkinson/ The Detroit News

Detroit— Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette lashed out Thursday at the U.S. appeals court that overturned the state’s 2006 law banning the use of race and gender preferences, calling its decision “nutty” and saying that he will file an appeal Friday morning.

In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled July 1 against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibited using race and gender in college admissions and government hiring and contracting.

Schuette said his office will ask the entire U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider a rehearing of the case. If it does, a panel of 15 judges will hear the entire case again, he said. Meanwhile, the law remains in effect. It could take until early next year to resolve the matter before the appellate court, he said.

“We will stand up and protect the rights of all citizens of Michigan to be treated fairly,” Schuette said during a press conference at the attorney general’s Detroit offices at Cadillac Place on West Grand Boulevard.

The appeals court ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The judges objected to the inclusion of the ban in the Michigan Constitution.

Schuette said the MCRI follows the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which calls for equal protection of the law and said other appellate courts have upheld similar legislation.

“This decision simply defies common sense and turns the 14th Amendment on its head, upside down, and inside out,” Schuette said.

The 2006 law, also known as Proposal 2, forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. Proposal 2 bans preferences in university admissions and government hiring and contracting on the basis of race, gender or ethnicity. The ban passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2006.

Before to the policy change, U-M’s law school, medical school, dental school and Wayne State University’s law and medical school had considered the race and ethnicity of applicants.

In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld the law, saying it was race-neutral.

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Detroit chapter of the NAACP issued a statement on Thursday saying they object to Schuette’s appeal.

Mark Rosenbaum, an ACLU attorney and University of Michigan professor who argued the case on behalf of a group of students, faculty and prospective applicants to the University of Michigan, said in a statement the court should deny the state’s appeal.

“The (U.S.) Supreme Court has held that a state law is unconstitutional when it makes it more difficult for racial minorities to achieve legislation that is in their interest,” Rosenbaum said in the statement. “Proposal 2 is precisely the unfair political structure that the appeals court struck down.”

mwilkinson@detnews.com

(313) 222-2563

Subscribe to Detroit News home delivery and receive a SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFFER.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday ordered the city to revise its policing policy, saying the enforcement of the law is unconstitutional.

The court says the city erred when it let supporters offer words of encouragement to women entering a clinic but banned an opponent who was trying to dissuade patients from having abortions.

The unanimous three-judge panel was ruling in a lawsuit filed against the city by the Rev. Walter Hoye, who calls himself a “sidewalk counselor.”

The appeals court ordered the trial judge to help Oakland craft an enforcement policy that bars all advocacy within the eight-foot bubble.

A conservative law center petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday asking the court to strike down a provision in President Obama’s health care reform law that requires Americans to buy health insurance.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., claims the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the authority to compel private citizens to buy health insurance, Reuters reports.

If the mandate stands, “the federal government will have absolute and unfettered power to create complex regulatory schemes to fix every perceived problem imaginable and to do so by ordering private citizens to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law,” the law center claims in its petition.

In June, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati voted 2-1 to uphold the provision requiring most U.S. residents to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The purpose of the mandate is to provide medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

One of the 6th circuit judges to uphold the law, Jeffrey Sutton, was appointed by former President George W. Bush – the first Republican-appointed judge to rule in favor of the health care overhaul. The appellate decision was not just a political victory for Obama, but a legal one as well. It was the first time a mid-level federal court had upheld a major component of the landmark legislation.

Two other federal appeals courts in Richmond, Va. and Atlanta have heard similar arguments challenging the law but have not yet issued decisions.

Although the Supreme Court hears only a fraction of the cases that petition it for review, legal experts expect the high court to ultimately take on the issue of whether the health care law is constitutional – most likely during its upcoming term that begins in October. The earliest the court would hear the case is early 2012, the AP reports.

The Thomas More Law Center originally filed the lawsuit on March 23, 2010, the day Obama signed the health care reform bill into law.
 

• Same-Sex Marriage in NY Illegal, Says Senator Ruben Diaz
• Gay Marriage Law in New York Can Be Canceled, Says Protesters
• Gay Marriage New York City: Thousands Protest New Law
• Gay Marriage New York City: Senator Won’t Tolerate Hatred From Christians Toward Gays
• Gay Marriage New York: Protests, Weddings to Take Place on First Day of New York Gay Marriage Law
• Gabe Lyons: Marriage Problem in U.S. Culture Isn’t Gay Marriage
• Gay Marriage ‘Devalues’ Traditional Marriage, Says Pawlenty

• Homosexuality
• Marriage

The suit was filed one day after the gay marriage law went into effect. Plaintiffs allege that the state Legislature used a “corrupt legislative process” to pass the Marriage Equality Act, thus infringing on the rights of New York citizens.

“Constitutional liberties were violated. Today we are asking the court to intervene in its rightful role as the check and balance on an out-of-control State Legislature,” stated NYCF executive director Rev. Jason J. McGuire, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

Nathaniel S. Leiter, executive director for Torah Jews for Decency, an Orthodox Jewish advocacy group, is also listed as a plaintiff in the suit.

Some of the violations listed in the lawsuit include:

• The Senate violated the New York State open meetings laws

Like us on Facebook

• The suspension of normal Senate voting procedures to prevent Senators who opposed the bill from speaking

• Failure to follow Senate procedures that require that a bill must be sent to appropriate committees prior to being placed before the full Senate for a vote

• Unprecedented Senate lockouts by which lobbyists and the public were denied access to elected representatives

• The Governor’s violation of the constitutionally mandated three-day review period before the Legislation votes on a bill by unjustifiably issuing a message of necessity

• Promises by high profile elected officials and Wall Street financiers to make large campaign contributions to Republican senators who switched their vote from opposing to supporting the Marriage Equality Act.

Plaintiffs, represented by Liberty Counsel, an evangelical Christian legal organization in Florida, are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

“New York law requires that the government be open and transparent to keep political officials responsible,” Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said in a statement.

“When government operates in secret and freezes out the very people it is supposed to represent, the entire system fails. The back-room tactics were rampant in the passages of this law. The law should be set aside and the process should begin again to allow the people a voice in the process.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had no basis for issuing a message of necessity, which allowed lawmakers to immediately vote on the marriage bill after it was drawn up instead of allowing it to “age” for three days as is usually required.

A spokesperson for Cuomo dismissed the suit, saying, “The plaintiffs lack a basic understanding of the laws of the sate of New York. The suit is without merit.”

Spokesmen for the Senate majority leader Dean G. Skelos and the state attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman have declined to comment.

Despite the pending lawsuit to nullify the bill, gay and lesbian couples continue to go to the City Clerk’s offices to get marriage licenses, and exchange vows.

The lawsuit is only a part of the growing opposition to the new gay marriage law.

On Sunday, thousands of protesters participated in the “Let the People Vote” rallies across Manhattan, Albany, Buffalo and Rochester to demand that state lawmakers allow voters to decide the gay marriage issue on a statewide referendum.

New York is the sixth and most populous state to recognize same sex marriage.

The initial $634,000 bill for the unsuccessful defense of a Vermont law limiting access to prescription drug databases hints that legislators may need better advice on the constitutionality of controversial legislation they consider.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that prevented pharmacies from selling information about the prescription writing habits of doctors to companies that want to use the information for marketing.

State Auditor Tom Salmon, who released a report on the cost of litigation this month, says the total price tag could reach as high as $2 million after court assigns costs to Vermont as the losing party in the suit.

What a tremendous waste of money in support of a hollow principle.

As the Legislature was considering the bill in 2007, a federal judge stuck down the New Hampshire law that had been copied for the Vermont legislation. Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre, in 2008 unsuccessfully sought to repeal the law arguing the information was “constitutionally protected commercial free speech.”

As it turned out, that’s how the Supreme Court ruled, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in an opinion, “The state may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.”

How appropriate that even the Supreme Court challenges the state’s tendency to snub free speech and open government.

A mere threat of a lawsuit must not deter lawmakers from passing legislation they feel is on sound legal footing and in the best interest of Vermonters. At other times, the Legislature may seek to push the boundaries of existing law, fully conscious of the legal challenges the state is likely to face and what it would cost to defend the law.

Yet the state can hardly afford to ignore legal precedent that might give credence to a charge that a proposed law is likely to be struck down. Being on the wrong side of a constitutional challenge can be costly.

In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s campaign finance law saying the limits on campaign contributions were too low while limits on campaign spending restricted a candidate’s free speech rights. That lost fight cost the state $1.4 million in legal fees.

That leaves Vermont with two losses in five years on challenges to state law that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Vermonters must be wondering, are lawmakers getting bad advice or are they failing to heed sensible warnings? Are we, as a state, so out of step with prevailing views on basic constitutional rights as to misread what the courts will allow?

Vermont needs to take more care in crafting legislation that’s likely to be challenged — especially when a law seeks to limit constitutionally protected speech.

Losing the case before the Supreme Court is more a political issue rather than legal one. The politicians pushed a law that ended up costing taxpayers a bundle.