Urging the Federal courts to expedite disposition of actions challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that federal courts should expedite, to the extent practicable, the disposition of actions challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 74 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 74

     Urging the Federal courts to expedite disposition of actions 
    challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2011

 Mr. Forbes (for himself, Mr. Lance, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Burton of 
Indiana) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
     Urging the Federal courts to expedite disposition of actions 
    challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).

Whereas actions have been filed in a number of Federal courts challenging the 
        constitutionality of various provisions of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), including the so-called 
        individual mandate;
Whereas, in the case of Virginia v. Sebelius (Civil Action No. 3:10CV188-HEH), 
        Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled on 
        December 13, 2010, that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in 
        that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to impose such a 
        mandate;
Whereas a similar case, Florida v. Sebelius (Case No. 3:10-cv-91), was filed in 
        the district court for the Northern District of Florida to challenge the 
        constitutionality of the individual mandate and other provisions of that 
        law and 26 States have either challenged or are seeking leave to 
        challenge such constitutionality;
Whereas in the cases of Liberty University v. Geithner (Case No. 6:10-cv-00015) 
        and Thomas Moore Law Center v. Obama (729 F. Supp. 2d), Judge Norman K. 
        Moon of the Western District of Virginia and Judge George C. Steeh of 
        the Eastern District of Michigan, respectively, upheld the 
        constitutionality of the individual mandate;
Whereas the lack of a definitive ruling in these actions creates uncertainties 
        and impacts adversely on the areas of the economy and health care; and
Whereas a prompt resolution of these cases would bring certainty to employers, 
        individuals, health care providers, State and local governments, and 
        others: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) it is a matter of great public importance that actions 
        in Federal courts challenging the constitutionality of the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) 
        be resolved as quickly as possible; and
            (2) the Federal courts should expedite, to the greatest 
        extent practicable, the disposition of such actions.
                                 <all>