On April 15, the Ninth Circuit added the following entry on the docket sheet in Baldwin v. Sebelius:
No active judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by General Order 5.2.a. The request is therefore denied.Again, this case is unlikely to matter much, and for two reasons. First, the district court only reached the standing question. Thus, although the parties briefed the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision on the merits, it seems unlikely the Ninth Circuit would reach that question with no judgment on that issue under review. Second, the Ninth Circuit has yet to schedule oral argument. So it seems unlikely, purely as a matter of timing, that this will be the one to reach the Supreme Court; other cases should beat it there.