This spring, oral arguments are scheduled to begin in a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Before the Supreme Court tackles the challenged “individual mandate” in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it may first have to determine whether or not a challenge to the Act can be litigated at all. The Court could decide to delay any decision until 2015, when the penalties will be assessed against those who refuse to buy health insurance.
The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, 26 USC § 7421, is a federal statute that prohibits lawsuits brought for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax. The Act is based in part on Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), requiring a taxpayer resisting the assessment of a tax to pay the full amount of the tax before filing suit, essentially for a refund. If the Court determines that the “individual mandate” operates as a tax penalty under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, the Court would be precluded from hearing the case until 2015, when the penalties will be assessed against those who refuse to purchase health insurance. In Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 2011 WL 3925617 (4th Cir. Sep. 8, 2011), the Fourth Circuit dismissed a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in part on the basis that the individual mandate functioned as a tax, and the controversy was not ripe for judicial action.
Whether the Tax Anti-Injunction Act plays a significant role in the justices’ decision remains to be seen. Although the Fourth Circuit dismissed the challenge on the basis of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, three other appeals courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, moved beyond the tax issue and litigated substantive constitutional issues.
Author(s): Brooke P. Dolara
