House of Representatives Files Opposition To Summary Judgment Motion In ACA Challenge

800px-Capitol_Building_Full_ViewOn December 2, 2015, the United States House of Representatives filed its motion for summary judgment in its challenge to the Administration’s unilateral actions taken under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At the time, the Administration filed its own summary judgment motion. This evening, the House filed its opposition to the Administration’s motion.

The Administration also filed its opposition to the House motion for summary judgment. Both parties will now have an opportunity to respond to the respective opposition filings. Replies are due February 5, 2016. All briefings will then be complete on the dispositive motions.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel for the United States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives v. Burwell et al

41 thoughts on “House of Representatives Files Opposition To Summary Judgment Motion In ACA Challenge”

  1. BarkinDog writes, “You do not have standing to sue either.”

    Wouldn’t you agree that if your statement were true, Congress’s subpoena power over the Executive branch would become precatory?

  2. Your Congress, here in America, needs to have the collective heads examined. Mental illness, not just psychotic but what you call retardation, and complete lack of cohesion. Too many members perhaps. They each have two feet that can not walk properly. Then no two of them can walk together. The notion by the dog on the blog that they have no standing to sue is self evident.

  3. JR writes, “Please remember, you need to pass legislation to find out what’s in it – at least that’s what we were informed by a former Speaker of the House.”

    How ’bout a constitutional amendment requiring all matters within a bill submitted to committee or either chamber be reasonably related to all other matters within it?

    In other words, how ’bout let’s stop pork gun or VA healthcare legislation, for example, in a bill intended to fund a primary school lunch program.

    And what Karen S wrote about congresspersons reading them.

  4. I think the document should be titled: Memorandum of Law In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment. Add “of Law” Barkindog. And JT.

  5. “The House is divided and is standing on less than all its feet. Hence, no standing to sue.”

    The U.S. House of Representatives most certainly were harmed, as well as the people of the U.S. because Obama is stealing money from the treasury to fund his ill-gotten healthcare law, instead of the account that was approved by the legislative branch.

    The executive branch has no standing in funding his own bill or changing the law mandates, set by congress.

    Obama and co are nothing but a bunch of thieves and law breakers who have done nothing but shake down the American people. He’s disgraceful and a lawless tripe.

  6. Went in dumb, come out dumb too. Hired a law professor with alligator shoes. Keeping the lawyers down. We’re rednecks, rednecks. We don’t know our arse from a hole in the ground. etc.

    Consult your law students for an advisory opinion on how to respond to a Motion For Summary Judgment. Jeso.

  7. The pleading filed by JT can be ignored by the court because it does not qualify as a proper pleading. It is kind of like filing a law review article instead of a Memorandum In Opposition
    To Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment.

    “Memorandum” : Get it?

    Live free or die.

    You do not have standing to sue either.

  8. And the penalty for treason is good reason. We need health care you dumb itShays.

  9. JT: If you would inquire from law students they might tell you that your document should be styled: Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment.

    It is a no brainer. But brains start with lawyers, not law professors. Jeso. This is why your clients do not have standing to sue. Its a no brainer.

  10. When will any of these Republican whiners come up with something proactive, some ideas to fix stuff, move forward, evolve, learn, do good, etc. Since their great shame of the three stooges, Republicans have done nothing but try to drag this country backwards. Better an intelligent tyrant than the comedy of errors that is the Republican party.

  11. If the Professor wins, Obama will have been proven guilty of usurpation and treason by way of deliberate and malicious subversion of the Constitution with intent to “fundamentally transform” the government of the United States of America.

    What is the penalty for treason?

  12. Karen S,

    Please remember, you need to pass legislation to find out what’s in it – at least that’s what we were informed by a former Speaker of the House.

  13. On behalf of those financially harmed by the ACA, I pray this law is eventually repealed.

    They should start afresh with a series of small bills, no more than a couple of pages each, that Congress had better read and understand prior to passing. Each small, focused bill would be much more agile. One aspect not working? Repeal its bill and replace it with no more “too big to fail.”

    6 foot tall bills do not make good legislation.

  14. “….the tyranny of Barack Obama.” Tyranny? Arbitrary nor unjust, the only tyranny here is with the House of Representatives and is by definition the tyranny of the majority. And, pray tell, who are the judges in this frivolous case of the exercise of the tyranny of the majority of nay sayers and know nothings?

  15. Find myself, quite often actually, going to the dictionary for word definitions in case I’ve had it wrong all these years… nope, it isn’t me!

  16. The House is divided and is standing on less than all its feet. Hence, no standing to sue. Tyranny of the Majority. House divided cannot speak. Its a speakeasy.

Comments are closed.