Civil and Human Rights

Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Challenge Brought By Anti-Gay Crusader

Dr. Steven Hotze’s case was backed by Sen. Ted Cruz

By Robert Baldwin III

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by an anti-gay Houston physician who has warned that same-sex marriage will lead to sodomy among kindergarteners.

The court, in a single-line order Monday, rejected the case brought by Dr. Steven Hotze without explanation. Hotze’s lawsuit alleged that Obamacare failed to comply with the Constitution’s origination clause, which provides that all taxes must originate in the House of Representatives.

The court in January declined to hear a similar origination clause case brought by a Sacramento plaintiff. The challenges arise from the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012 that the Affordable Care Act imposed a tax on citizens without health insurance, thus making the law’s origin in Congress subject to review by the courts.

“There is universal agreement among the judges who have heard these cases, both conservative and liberal judges, that the case is a loser,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in January.

Hotze’s failed challenge stands out because it was backed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The GOP presidential candidate signed onto an amicus brief in support of Hotze in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in July.

Hotze, despite his anti-gay views, has a long history of associating with politicians. Cruz spoke at an anti-gay marriage rally Hotze hosted in 2014. Hotze was a supporter of former Houston Mayor Louie Welch, who famously said, “Shoot the queers,” when asked how he would curb HIV in his unsuccessful 1985 comeback campaign.

Hotze said when he founded the political action committee Conservative Republicans of Texas in July that if marriage is redefined, “It will be mandated to be taught to the children in the schools, at an early age, starting in kindergarten. They will be encouraged by their teachers to participate in anal sex.” 

The Supreme Court later this month is scheduled to hear arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, sort of sequel to 2014’s Hobby Lobby case that tests whether Obamacare’s requirement that religious organizations sign a form to opt out of providing their employees with contraceptive coverage violates their beliefs.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 25, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.