This is the case currently pending in the Sixth Circuit which, because it challenges the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision, was also put on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision. Unlike many other cases, however, this case was not mooted, as the plaintiffs are now challenging the mandate on different grounds. Specifically, the plaintiff-appellants now have three remaining claims:
1. That the minimum coverage provision violates their right to "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
2. That the minimum coverage provision violates their rights to "intimate association" and "expressive association" protected by the First and Fifth Amendments.
3. That the minimum coverage provision violates their constitutional right to privacy, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This case has been fully briefed. (You can find the briefs in the column to the right, after scrolling down a ways.) It was scheduled for oral argument, but then was taken off the court's calendar once it became clear that the Supreme Court decision (if it had invalidated the mandate) might moot the matter. Now the parties are to file new papers, and the court will presumably re-schedule the case for oral argument.
