Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Rule 11?

Here is the complaint filed by 13 states today challenging the HCR Act.  I have only glanced through about half of it, but this does not get past the Rule 12 stage.  Unfortunately, the defense side is the United States, so it's very unlikely that the U.S. will seek Rule 11 sanctions (and generally the standard for sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions is higher).  Nevertheless, there is no way this suit can succeed under existing precedent or through any reasonable extension of the law.  The complaint is really not a complaint but a political opposition to the act with lots of grandstanding and assertions that actually have no legal basis.  Just as an example, I cannot distinguish HCR's state spending requirements from the alcohol consumption age limits imposed under National Highway Spending. 

There's this gem from Paragraph 46:  "Although the federal government currently contributes 67.64 percent of every dollar Florida spends on Medicaid, that percentage is artificially and temporarily raised because of federal stimulus outlays."  Would you like a permanent stimulus Florida? 

Anyway, even if one opposed the HCR, I think a reasonable mind would have to read this complaint as meritless and the quintessential plea for legislation from the bench.

Edit:  And to piggy back on Carbolic's updated post on Prof. Liu, you can get a preview of tomorrow's hearing by reviewing the transcript of Mr. John G. Roberts' nomination to the D.C. Circuit.   Just cross out the D and replace it with an R, and vice versa.  I'll be damned if Jeff Sessions does not sound like Ted Kennedy tomorrow.  [Use the CTRL F search function to find the relevant portions.]

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on March 23, 2010 (boomark / email).