Category Archives: Irvin B. Dixon

Irvin B. Nathan, HACK Pro Vice Attorney General for the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) wants to see how SHORT-TIMER’S DISEASE affects Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., D.C. Superior Court Judge, District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), DC TAXPAYERS and the citizens and residents of the Fifty (50) United States of America when he PREEMPTS The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) for Obamacare

November 7, 2014 (11/7/2014)

Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, submitted:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

KIRBY VINING,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH
BENEFIT EXCHANGE AUTHORITY, et al

Defendants

Case No. 14-6496
Judge Herbert P. Dixon, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IS SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

——————————————————————

Page 2

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Irvin B. Nathan, CLAIMED:

… DISTRICT of COLUMBIA LAW, … is

PREEMPTED

by the ACA and pertinent regulations

——————————————————————

Page 11

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Irvin Nathan, CLAIMED:

In this case, FEDERAL LAW

PREEMPTS

the application of the LOCAL LAW establishing a 50-employee limit …

——————————————————————

Page 13

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Nathan, CLAIMED:

II. THE ACA AND OPM REGULATIONS

PREEMPT

ANY CONTRARY D.C. LAW …

_________________________________________________

Case No. 2014 CA 006496 B
Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr.

February 25, 2015 (2/25/2015)

Judge Herbert Dixon, Jr. issued an:

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

——————————————————————

Page 2

… the Plaintiff asserts that neither the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) nor any implementing regulation expressly

PREEMPTS

the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority Establishment Act of 2011

——————————————————————

Page 9

Finally, even if OPM’s administrative rules and regulations were construed as conflicting with the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority Establishment Act of 2011, the court would necessarily conclude that the OPM’s rules and regulations

PREEMPT

the plaintiff’s asserted interpretation of D.C. Code (Section) 31-3171.01(11).(16)(A) …

_________________________________________________

July 13, 2015 (7/13/2015)

Attorney Michael Bekesha, Judicial Watch, Inc., submitted:

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT KIRBY VINING

——————————————————————

Page – 11 –

Attorney Michael Bekesha, Judicial Watch, Inc.,

QUESTIONS

why on November 7, 2014 (11/7/2014)

did Attorney General for the District of Columbia,

Irvin B. Nathan,

on behalf of:

Executive Board of the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
District of Columbia Health Bewnefit Exchange Authority
Mila Kofman (in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Authority)

CLAIM:

Page 2 … District of Columbia law, … is

PREEMPTED

by the ACA and pertinent regulations
——————————————————————
Page 11 … FEDERAL LAW

PREEMPTS

the application of the LOCAL LAW establishing a 50-employee limit …
——————————————————————
Page 13 II. THE ACA AND OPM REGULATIONS

PREEMPT

ANY CONTRARY D.C. LAW …
………………………………………………..
when six (6) days later, on

November 13, 2014 (11/13/2014)

in a case filed

July 3, 2014 (7/3/2014)

his colleague:

William F. Causey, Assistant Attorney General

(who is also listed on the documents filed with the District of Columbia Court KIRBY VINING case)

had ARGUED THE EXACT OPPOSITE FACTS

and the

District of Columbia District Court

AGREED with Assistant Attorney General, William F. Causey

in a case involving the same three (3) parties as the KIRBY VINING case:

1:2014cv01138 (BAH)

Executive Board of the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
Mila Kofman

American Council of Life Insurers v. D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160038, 26-27
(D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2014)

Defendants argued that the ACA

DOES NOT PREEMPT

D.C. law

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed:

[E]xpress

PREEMPTION

IS CLEARLY UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA . . . squarely addresses

PREEMPTION

and provides that:

NOTHING in this title shall be construed to

PREEMPT

any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title”

………………………………………………..

Express

PREEMPTION

CANNOT APPLY

because the ACA explicitly recognizes that State laws may be required to carry out the ACA mandate to provide minimum essential health coverage

………………………………………………..

Similarly, to the extent the plaintiff seeks to invoke “field”

PREEMPTION

by referencing

“the authority of Congress to reserve for itself exclusive dominion over an entire field of legislative concern,”

THIS EFFORT IS UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA expressly grants the States the choice of operating their own Exchange, pursuant to state law, rather than adopt a Federal Exchange plainly undercutting any perceived congressional intent to control the entire field of local Exchanges

American Council of Life Insurers v. D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160038, 26-27
(D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2014)

The OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA

seems to think it should be able to have it

BOTH WAYS

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
November 13, 2014 (11/13/2014)
——————————————————————
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/3956731/AMERICAN_COUNCIL_OF_LIFE_INSURERS_v_DISTRICT_OF_COLUMBIA_HEALTH_BENEFIT_EXCHANGE_AUTHORITY_et_al
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014/36/
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014/36/0.pdf?ts=1415971712
_________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1138 (BAH)

Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 12

A. ACA DOES NOT PREEMPT

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 13

1. PREEMPTION Principles

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 14

Notably, a general presumption AGAINST FEDERAL

PREEMPTION

of state law exists, particularly in areas traditionally reserved to the States
………………………………………………..

… courts “start with the assumption that the historic
——————————————————————
Page 15

police powers of the States were NOT to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”

………………………………………………..

“To overcome the presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION

[], the party asserting

PREEMPTION

must demonstrate

‘that the clear and manifest purpose of Congress’

supports

PREEMPTION

………………………………………………..

… the presumption which

“courts must consider when invoking the doctrine of

PREEMPTION,”

that

“in areas where States have exercised their historic police powers

(such as the HEALTH and safety of their citizens),

courts must start with a presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION,

absent a

‘clear and manifest purpose of Congress'”

………………………………………………..

Consequently,

“when the text of a

PRE-EMPTION

clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily accept the reading that DISFAVORS

PRE-EMPTION,”

since

“[t]hat approach is consistent with both federalism concerns and the historic primacy of state regulation of matters of HEALTH and safety”

………………………………………………..

This presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION

may be overcome only if the court finds that the

PREEMPTIVE

purpose of Congress was

“clear and manifest”

………………………………………………..

2. Analysis of … PREEMPTION Claim

… express

PREEMPTION

IS CLEARLY

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
Page 16

UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA amends, in part, the Public Health Services Act, which squarely address

PREEMPTION

and provides that:

NOTHING in this title shall be construed to

PREEMPT

any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title”

………………………………………………..

Express

PREEMPTION

CANNOT APPLY because the ACA explicitly recognizes that State laws may be required to carry out the ACA mandate …

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 31

Moreover, the

“case for FEDERAL

PRE-EMPTION

is particularly weak where Congress has indicated its awareness of the operation of state law in a field of interest, and has nonetheless decided to ‘stand by both concepts and to tolerate whatever tension there [is] between them'”

As the defendants note,

“[h]ere, not only did Congress demonstrate its ‘awareness’ of the operation of state and local law in the regulation of the health-insurance industry in the ACA, it encouraged a collaborative approach, detailing ways in which States could generate funding to operate their Exchanges”

Accordingly, the ACA DOES NOT

PREEMPT

… as the ACA reflects the intent of Congress for the States to have broad flexibility to implement and operate State Exchanges

—————————————————————–
image
——————————————————————

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1138 (BAH)

Judge Beryl A. Howell

American Council of Life Insurers v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority et al

Memorandum Opinion

—————————————————————–
image
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image