Obama Administration Files Motion To Dismiss House Challenge

Congressional SealSeal_of_the_President_of_the_United_States.svgThe Obama Administration has filed its expected Motion to Dismiss in the challenge by the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. As many of you know, I am lead counsel in the action. We posted our complaint earlier and I have posted the motion of the Administration below.

The effort by the Administration to seek the dismissal of the action was anticipated and we will be filing an opposition memorandum clearly laying out the right of the House of Representatives to be heard in federal court. We do not believe that the Administration will be successful in its effort to avoid consideration of the merits of this constitutional challenge. However, in deference to the Court, we will confine our specific response to our filing before Judge Collyer.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel
United States House of Representative v. Burwell

Proposed Order


28 thoughts on “Obama Administration Files Motion To Dismiss House Challenge”

  1. JT has made passionate speeches and writings about the lawlessness of this Administration. He voted for Obama! He has taken the Bush Administration to task as well, but has made a compelling argument the Obama Administration has been the most unconstitutional in modern history, even more than Tricky Dick and certain worse than Bush. BDS prevents some folks from seeing it.

  2. Well, in spite of the lynch mob on this blog, this is up to the court. Hopefully the court, packed as it is to the right, won’t be swayed by six years of ranting and raving and deem typical political activities as illegal. I, for one am prepared to wait, however, the court’s decision is not necessarily the right one, only the court’s decision. They get overturned, are obviously left or right leaning from time to time, and as has been shown, sometimes simply wrong for democracy. Opening up the wallets of the special interests and the oligarchs in this country is nothing to be proud of, and that is referring to left and right wing purchasers of politicians.

    As for J. Turley, I would like to hear about any bipartisan attacks he has made. That would help. Perhaps he could spearhead a drive to put the three stooges in jail for far worse than Obama has done. Obama is a piker when it comes to crime when placed up against the last government. The only thing that is being tested here is whether or not the court will rule against the best interest of the people by tuning the Constitution to the right.

    1. Issac I voted for Obama also, JT has said many times he agrees with many of Obama’s precepts. What I keep seeing he does not agree with is his overstepping of the separation of powers in the Office of President as if it is an Emporial office. It is not just Obama. Professor Turley was passionate when Bush did it also as I have perused his archives at length.

      In fact, the last several Presidents we have had abuse their privileged of executive power in the oval office. Professor Turley would have gone to ANY case I am sure to sue Obama or any President that abused these powers and not just ACA

  3. The administration’s petition is unassailable. The House will lose. But the claim is winnable if brought by a plaintiff with standing.

  4. If all 100 Senators voted to go to court then I would agree with BarkinDog that at least that half of the Congress would have standing to sue. Same with the House. Otherwise the dissenters can file their own lawsuit. I would have expected that already. Or a friend of the court (amicus in Latino) brief saying no way Jose.

  5. Nick –
    Yes, I was an “earner.” But retired now. With a reasonable nestegg, even. In my view it is beyond obscene that the rich are determined to squash the poor. And the middle class, for that matter. And it’s beyond obscene that Turley wants to participate in this process.
    Evidently the problem in this country is that the poor are not squalid enough, the sick are not sick enough, and the downtrodden haven’t been victimized enough. So certainly they should be denied the chance for affordable health care, so that my tax rate could be a little bit lower.

  6. Jay, You are the Stooge, being played like a cheap guitar by Dem politicians, getting rich on my, and your, back. I’m assuming you’re an earner. Some folks would not get INTEGRITY if it slapped them upside their head.

    On a positive note, I see an Area 51 plaintiff has joined us. We would enjoy any stories if you care to share.

  7. Jonathan –

    It is my sincerest hope that you lose, and lose badly. You are being used as a stooge by the Republicans.

  8. BarkinDog,

    The concept of standing needs to be revised if Congress can’t go to the Judicial branch over any issue to resolve conflict with the Executive branch. If the courts won’t get involved and mediate disputes, our system of government falls apart.

  9. Thank you, for being such a Patriot. I am not American. If I were, I would not be a Democrat. I appreciate anybody, who displays the courage of his convictions, no matter what persuasion they are. The U.S. would not be in this situation, if everyone behaved like you always have.
    God Bless you.

  10. I am happy to know that on your part, partisanship has nothing to do with this action. It is the principle of defending the Constitution of the U.S. and the rights of all people in our great country. God bless you and your efforts.

  11. I had previously commented that I did not think that Congress had Standing To Sue. The defendants raise the issue here but missed some arguments. I don’t necessarily want to clue them in. But, their motion and memorandum are on file and I think that they blew it.
    Standing. A “party” has standing to sue. What is a “party”? A person is. Maybe a citizen has standing to sue if they can show an interest in the statute which is cognizable. Maybe six House Members as citizens could join together in a lawsuit just like one or several hundred citizens could. Citizens would be more likely to have standing than one collection of House Members or Senate Members. Congress consists of a hundred senators in the Senate and many more members of the House. They don’t all agree or stand together or even as both bodies- House and Senate. Six shareholders of Standard Oil cannot sue n the name of Standard Oil. Six or twenty members of the Moohlah Temple cannot sue in the name of the Temple.
    The other reasons I cited in my previous comments back when the suit was filed are just as valid. But the lawyers for the defendants here did not get it right.

  12. I am impressed with your principled stand for the Constitution. Keep up the good work. Future citizens of this great country will remember you fondly as one of the people in the early 21st century that helped keep this country on its Constitutional feet. Just as Watergate became a defining moment when a President flouted the law.

  13. Best of luck, Prof. Turley. Let’s just hope Pres. Obama doesn’t “pack” the Supreme Court before the case is heard.

  14. All of us who you have successfully represented in the past are 100% in your corner. We know you will prevail. It’s about the future of this nation! Nuclear Couriers.

  15. Jonathan, not being a butt kisser here but I applaud your principle of standing up for the Constitution. I know that you may disagree at times with much of the House Reps. The fact that you are doing this gives me some hope that there are still people out there (from both sides) willing to fight for not only the Constitution but for us and future Americans.


  16. Very prudent post. I feel confident you will win this perfunctory challenge. Keep the powder dry for the real battles. God speed.

Comments are closed.