Supreme Court Rejects Yet Another Challenge to Obamacare

Washington, DC – On news this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Sissel v. HHS, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, Constitutional Accountability Center issued the following reaction:

 

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “It is hardly surprising that the Court has refused to hear this case. As I testified before a Committee of the House of Representatives last week, the ultimate outcome of challenges like this one aren’t in doubt. They are simply meritless. The Court upheld the ACA for the second time just last June, with Chief Justice Roberts picking up a sixth vote to send a clear signal that he’s had enough of what has become a blatant ideological crusade. One questions whether anti-Obamacare legal activists have gotten the message.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra’s testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice regarding challenges to the Affordable Care Act based on the Origination Clause of the Constitution, including Sissel v. HHS, January 13, 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C5Mbo0YrsU 

 

CAC “friend of the court” brief in Hotze v. Burwell (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit), on behalf of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, then-Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Sandy Levin of Michigan, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, explaining that the ACA satisfies the requirements of the Origination Clause: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/hotze-v-burwell 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes