IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
RYAN S. WALTERS, et al. PLAINTIFFS
v.
ERIC HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the United States, et al. DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-76-KS-MTP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants? Motion for Summary Judgment [73] and denies Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment [76].
I. Background
As the Court explained in previous orders, this cases involves a Constitutional challenge to the ?minimum essential coverage? provision ? more commonly referred to as the ?individual mandate? ? of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (?PPACA?), 111 PUB. L. NO. 148, § 1501(b), 124 Stat. 119, 244 (2010) (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 5000A). In its previous opinions, the Court addressed the issue of standing. Bryant v. Holder, 809 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Miss. 2011); Bryant v. Holder, No. 2:10-CV-76-KS-MTP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23975 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2011). In the first opinion, the Court granted Defendants? motion to dismiss for lack of standing, but it allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Bryant, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23975 at *39-*40.
—————————————————
Text has been truncated. For full publication text, download document.
