Coons v. Lew, No. 13-15324 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs Coons and Novack filed suit challenging the constitutionality of two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (Affordable Care Act): the individual mandate and the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, Ariz. Const. art. XXVII, section 2, is not preempted by the Affordable Care Act. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the individual mandate does not violate Coons' substantive due process right to medical autonomy; affirmed the dismissal of Coons' challenge, based on lack of ripeness, to the individual mandate for violation of his substantive due process right to informational privacy; affirmed the district court's holding that the Affordable Care Act preempts the Arizona Act; and, with respect to Novack's challenge to IPAB, the court vacated the district court's decision on the merits of the claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment in favor of federal officials in a case brought by two Arizona citizens alleging a facial constitutional challenge to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and seeking a declaration concerning the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires that individuals maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, did not violate a plaintiff’s substantive due process right to medical autonomy. The panel also affirmed the dismissal, for lack of ripeness, of a plaintiff’s challenge to the individual mandate for a violation of his substantive due process rights to informational privacy. The panel also affirmed the district court’s holding that the Affordable Care Act preempted the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, which amended the Arizona constitution to make it lawful to abstain from purchasing health insurance without paying any penalty. Finally, with respect to a plaintiff’s challenge to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is a new advisory board charged with issuing budget recommendations for the Medicare program in the event that the program exceeded growth projections, the panel vacated the district court’s decision on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 2, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.