White House won't oppose new challenge to 2010 healthcare law

WASHINGTON Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:03pm EDT

A delegate holds an ''Obama cares'' bumper sticker during the final session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina September 6, 2012. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

A delegate holds an ''Obama cares'' bumper sticker during the final session of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina September 6, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday cleared the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit that challenges the 2010 healthcare overhaul on religious grounds, including a claim that it helps fund abortions.

Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia, had challenged the individual mandate, which required Americans to obtain insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, and a mandate requiring big employers to provide coverage for workers.

The school has said the law violates the First Amendment ban on the government's establishing or impeding the free exercise of religion, by forcing objecting purchasers to buy insurance that could subsidize abortion, and exempting some religions from the law.

It has also said the law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee, and exceeds Congress' power to tax and spend and to regulate commerce.

In September 2011, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia said it lacked jurisdiction over Liberty's case because the federal Anti-Injunction Act banned lawsuits seeking to halt collection of a tax.

The Supreme Court concluded otherwise when it upheld the individual mandate in a 5-4 vote on June 28. Liberty then argued it deserved another chance to litigate because the 4th Circuit decision, which the Supreme Court did not review, was wrong.

In Wednesday's filing, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Liberty's First Amendment and equal protection claims lack merit, but that the 4th Circuit never considered their merits.

"Under the circumstances of this case, (the government defendants) do not oppose further proceedings in the court of appeals to resolve them," he wrote.

Mathew Staver, a lawyer for Liberty, said in a phone interview: "We're very pleased with the Department of Justice's response, which we expected and which reflects the correct process that this case should follow."

The case is Liberty University et al v. Geithner et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-438.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
fromthecenter wrote:
The law doesnt say that their workers have to buy contraceptives does it? What a load of crap. Are we going backwards? When will the religious zealots be satistified? Where will they stop? No birth control, no porn, no science, no alcohol? Are we heading back to the scopes trial? These ideals are not any better for our country then the religous zealots are in other countries.

Oct 31, 2012 9:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BigBlueFan wrote:
The law says you’re taxed. The law says contraception is paid for. Ergo the taxed plaintiff pays for contraception.

Oct 31, 2012 11:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
k1k2lee wrote:
This is silly. Tax dollars go to pay for Medicare and Medi-Cal which already pay for things like blood transfusions – which happen to be against the religious teachings of certain faiths. There is no problem with those. And tax dollars go to food stamps which pay for things like pork – which are also taboo under certain religions.

Nov 01, 2012 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.