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 Congress that the Supreme Court, on petition, should grant a writ of certiorari under rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act before judgment in the matter is entered in a U.S. court of appeals.

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 76 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 76

     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. Lance (for himself 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).

    Resolved,
    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 
        Stat. 119) into law, overhauling the healthcare system of the 
        United States;
            (2) 26 States have filed lawsuits challenging all or parts 
        of the Act in United States district courts and dozens of other 
        similar lawsuits have been filed as well;
            (3) the lawsuits are focused largely on the 
        constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, the 
        requirement that all Americans purchase healthcare coverage or 
        pay a fine, that is included in the Act;
            (4) thus far four courts have rendered contradictory 
        decisions with U.S. District Courts in Detroit, MI, and 
        Lynchburg, VA, ruling in favor of the individual mandate, and 
        U.S. District Courts in Richmond, VA, and Pensacola, FL, ruling 
        the individual mandate is unconstitutional;
            (5) these contradictory decisions are causing significant 
        uncertainty in not only the healthcare marketplace but the 
        general business marketplace in the United States as well;
            (6) the decisions have been appealed to the United States 
        Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States 
        Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States 
        Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; and
            (7) adding to the confusion on January 19, 2011, the House 
        of Representatives voted 245-189 to repeal the Act and on 
        February 2, 2011, the Senate voted 51-47 against repealing the 
        Act.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) is of 
        imperative public importance; and
            (2) on petition, the Supreme Court of the United States 
        should grant a writ of certiorari under rule 11 of the Rules of 
        the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the 
        constitutionality of that Act before judgment in the matter is 
        entered in a United States court of appeals.
                                 <all>