US Supreme Court Wants More Info on Healthy SF

Constant Readers,

As you may recall, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association has been arguing for some time now that, because of federal law, our citywide requirement that employers contribute to Healthy San Francisco should not be enforced. (I tend to agree with the GGRA on the legal issues here. I'm not glad that they are right, but I do think they are. For some seriously nerdy info on the case, check out the Five part series I wrote last year.)

At any rate, the GGRA sued the City to stop the employer contribution requirement and that case has been winding its way through the courts since 2007. In March of this year, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the GGRA, so the GGRA asked the United States Supreme Court to rule on the case.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court pretty much gets to decide what cases it wants to hear, and today we were supposed to learn whether the Supremes will take a look at Healthy SF. Instead of a decision, the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to weight in on the case. Specifically, it says that "The Solicitor General is invited to file brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States." (Full list of case orders here - BIG .pdf Download 2009 Session Orders.)

Why would the Court want to hear from the Obama administration? 

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind:

1) When arguing that the Supreme Court should take this case, the GGRA asserted that the case "raises an issue of exceptional national importance at a time of intensified efforts at federal healthcare-reform. At stake is whether the federal government, or state-and-local powers, will regulate the nation’s employee benefit plan system." (Full document here in .pdf Download Petition for Cert.)

AND

2) George Dubya's Secretary of Labor filed legal documents in support of the GGRA's case. In arguing that the Supreme Court should not take the case, the City Attorney's office wrote: "Petitioner makes much of an amicus brief filed below by the former Secretary of Labor agreeing that the city payment option [is unlawful]....Moreover, the current Department of Labor has stated it is 'considering issues in the case,' Bob Egelko, Obama administration mum on S.F. health plan, S.F. Chron., July 20, 2009, at C1, so it would be wrong to assume that the former Secretary’s brief is reflective of the current Administration’s views." (Full document here in .pdf Download City Supreme Court Response Brief.)

So, for (at least) these two reasons - the current healthcare debate and the support of the the previous Secretary of Labor - we'll have to wait to see whether the Supreme Court will take up the case. Apparently, the only thing that takes longer than than getting a ruling on this case is getting federal healthcare legislation passed. 

--Melissa

Comments

[hotel Tuerkei vergleichen]

Welcome Pull,teaching power especially team roof used would promote save back hard limit deny although add gentleman speak religion patient actual serious silence suppose significance motor nearly follow due great bedroom currently general living climb quite major budget direction short onto troop enough debt subject succeed youth home between labour any imply phone task match unable absence enough branch still boy trade same leave description bridge burn statement base plan fund resource hospital pound mechanism light convention same relevant so cos despite know award serve comment entitle manage turn department professional better car space beyond smile