LexisNexis® Legal News Podcast - Victory For Health Care Reform Is Appealed by Jerry Falwell's Liberty University To Supreme Court

Liberty University petitions the Supreme Court over dismissal of a health care reform case, and defendants in a Propofol infection case in Nevada are ordered to pay $162.5 million in punitive damages. Hear these and other stories from LexisNexis® Mealey's Publications. Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. For the latest litigation news headlines, visit www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys or www.lexisnexis.com/communities.

A Christian school on Oct. 10 filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a divided lower court decision that held that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Liberty University, et al. v. Timothy Geithner, et al., W.D. Va.).

On Nov. 30, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 753 F. Supp. 2d 611 (W.D. Va. 2010), dismissed a challenge to the PPACA brought by Liberty University Inc., Martha A. Neal, Michele G. Wadell, Dr. David Stein, Pausanias Alexander, Mary T. Bendorf, Joanne V. Merrill, Kathy Byron and Jeff Helgeson against U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, finding that Congress acted within its constitutionally delegated powers under the commerce clause when it passed the employer and individual mandates contained in the PPACA.

In a divided opinion, Liberty Univ., Inc. v. Geithner, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18618 (4th Cir. Va. Sept. 8, 2011), the majority of a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 8 held that the AIA strips the court of jurisdiction to hear Liberty University's challenge to the PPACA and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.  The dissenting judge said he would affirm the lower court's decision that Congress acted within its powers in passing the challenged provisions of the act.

View the original article here