Cardinal Dolan commented today on last week’s HHS Mandate Decision:
Did you hear about the decision last week by U.S. District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan in the lawsuit brought by the Archdiocese of New York . . . against the administration for the unconstitutional HHS mandate?
You probably did not, as there seems to have been virtually no mention of the decision—in favor of the archdiocese, by the way—in any local newspaper or on television.
While he noted that, “the judge’s decision doesn’t settle the case, but allows the case to proceed so that it might be heard in court,” Dolan cheered, “Bravo, Judge Cogan!” and applauded him for writing that “the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action. There is no, ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.’”
Read Dolan’s full statement here.
December 12th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
I suspect this ruling is the court’s ruling in some of the plaintiffs’ favor on the government’s 12(b)(6) motion. It’s preliminary and the plaintiffs’ burden was relatively light. Even so, apparently some of the plaintiffs were unsucessful.
I wouldn’t forecast the outcome of the entire case from this motion. All that can be said is that some of the plaintiffs have filed a properly pleaded lawsuit.
December 13th, 2012 | 6:11 am
The above commenter is not correct. The case was before the court on a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and that is what the case focuses on. The standing hurdle was substantial, as previous courts to address the issue with similarly situated plaintiffs had dismissed the case. It is true that a decision on standing in no way affects a decision on the merits. But this was an important decision nevertheless.
I describe the decision in some detail here: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/12/an-important-mandate-decision-edny-holds-standing-and-ripeness-satisfied.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact