USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 1 of 44[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT]No. 19-5125IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITSTATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.,Defendants-Appellees.On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the District of ColumbiaREPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTSOf Counsel:JOSEPH H. HUNTAssistant Attorney GeneralKATE S. O’SCANNLAINSolicitor of LaborHASHIM M. MOOPPANDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralG. WILLIAM SCOTTAssociate SolicitorMARK B. STERNMICHAEL S. RAABMICHAEL SHIHJENNIFER L. UTRECHTAttorneys, Appellate StaffCivil Division, Room 7268U.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20530(202) 353-6880THOMAS TSOMELISSA MOOREISIDRO MARISCALAttorneysOffice of the SolicitorU.S. Department of Labor
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 2 of 44CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASESPursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), the undersigned counsel certifies asfollows:A.Parties and AmiciPlaintiffs are the State of New York; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; theDistrict of Columbia; the State of California; the State of Delaware; theCommonwealth of Kentucky; the State of Maryland; the State of New Jersey; theState of Oregon; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the Commonwealth ofVirginia; and the State of Washington.Defendants are the U.S. Department of Labor; Patrick Pizzella, in his officialcapacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor; and the United Statesof America.Amici before the district court included: (1) the Chamber of Commerce of theUnited States of America and the Society for Human Resource Management; (2) theStates of Texas, Nebraska, Georgia, and Louisiana; (3) Nancy Pelosi, Steny H. Hoyer,James E. Clyburn, Joseph Crowley, Linda T. Sánchez, Robert C. Scott, Frank Pallone,Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Richard E. Neal; (4) the Restaurant Law Center; (5) theAmerican Medical Association and the Medical Society of the State of New York; and(6) the Coalition to Protect and Promote Association Health Plans.Amici before this Court in support of appellants include: (1) the Chamber ofCommerce of the United States of America, the National Federation of Independent
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 3 of 44Business, the Texas Association of Business, the United Service Association forHealth Care, the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, the Louisiana Association ofBusiness and Industry, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the State Chamber ofOklahoma, the Vermont of Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Chamber ofCommerce & Industry, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the GreaterFairbanks Chamber of Commerce (Alaska), the East Valley Chambers of CommerceAlliance (Arizona), the Tucson Metro Chamber (Arizona), the Greater MiamiChamber of Commerce (Florida), the Bolingbrook Area Chamber of Commerce(Illinois), the Carol Stream Chamber of Commerce (Illinois), Chamber630 (Illinois),the Elgin Area Chamber of Commerce (Illinois), the Elmhurst Chamber ofCommerce & Industry (Illinois), the Heritage Corridor Business Alliance (Illinois), theOrland Chamber of Commerce (Illinois), the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce(Illinois), the West Suburban Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Illinois), theWheaton Chamber of Commerce (Illinois), the Traverse City Area Chamber ofCommerce (Michigan), the Northwest Chamber of Commerce (Missouri), theBoulder City Chamber of Commerce (Nevada), the Henderson Chamber ofCommerce (Nevada), the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce (Nevada), the LasVegas Latin Chamber of Commerce (Nevada), the Las Vegas Metro Chamber ofCommerce (Nevada), the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce (Nevada), theUrban Chamber of Commerce (Nevada), the Zebulan Chamber of Commerce (NorthCarolina), the Chester County Chamber of Business and Industry (Pennsylvania), theii
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 4 of 44Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center (South Carolina), theAllen Fairview Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Cedar Hill Chamber ofCommerce (Texas), the Chamber (Schertz-Cibolo-Selma Area) (Texas), the ColleyvilleChamber of Commerce (Texas), the Denison Area Chamber of Commerce (Texas),the East Parker County Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Frisco Chamber ofCommerce (Texas), the Garland Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the GranburyChamber of Commerce (Texas), the Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce (Texas),the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Greater Arlington Chamber ofCommerce (Texas), the Greater Waco Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the HurstEuless Bedford Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Lake Cities Chamber ofCommerce (Texas), the Lewisville Area Chamber of Commerce (Texas), theLongview Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce(Texas), the Melissa Area Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Mansfield AreaChamber of Commerce (Texas), the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce (Texas), theNorth Texas Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Chamber of Commerce (Texas), thePlano Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Pottsboro Area Chamber of Commerce(Texas), the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Rockwall AreaChamber of Commerce (Texas), the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce (Texas), theWichita Falls Chamber of Commerce (Texas), the Wylie Chamber of Commerce(Texas), the Marshfield Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Wisconsin); (2) theStates of Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Northiii
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 5 of 44Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and WestVirginia, Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi, and Kentucky, by and throughGovernor Matt Bevin; (3) the Oklahoma Insurance Department and the MontanaState Auditor, Commissioner of Securities and Insurance; (4) The Restaurant LawCenter; (5) the National Association of Realtors, the Baldwin County Association ofRealtors, the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors, the Kansas City RegionalAssociation of Realtors, Nevada Realtors, and the Tennessee Realtors; and(6) the Coalition to Protect and Promote Association Health Plans andAssociationHealthPlans.com.Amici before this Court in support of appellees include: (1) Health Care PolicyHistory Scholars, Henry J. Aaron, Linda J. Blumberg, Andrea Louise Campbell,Daniel Carpenter, Sabrina Corlette, David Cutler, Steven Davidson, Doug Elmendorf,Judith Feder, Robert Field, Sherry Glied, Colin Gordon, Jacob S. Hacker, Mark A.Hall, John Holahan, David K. Jones, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Miriam Laugesen,Theodore Marmor, Rick Mayes, Jonathan Oberlander, Thomas R. Oliver, DaniaPalanker, Mark Peterson, Harold Pollack, Sara Rosenbaum, William Sage, MarkSchlesinger, David Schactman, David Barton Smith, Michael Sparer, JoAnn Volk,Joseph White, Christen Linke Young, and Stephen Zuckerman; (2) Families USA,National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Law Center,National Employment Law Project, National Health Law Program, United HospitalFund, and Public Citizen; (3) the Small Business Majority Foundation, Inc.;iv
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 6 of 44(4) Former State Insurance Commissioners and Former State Insurance Regulators:Joel Airo, Brain Atchinson, Carrie Banahan, Elizabeth S. Berendt, Randy Blumer,Robert Brace, Katherine M. Clark, Jane Cline, Rick Diamond, Jack Ehnes, AllenFeezor, Alissa Fox, Jeffrey Gabardi, Christina Lechner Goe, Jorge A. Gomez, SuzetteGreen-Wright, Thomas E. Hampton, Jean Holliday, J. Robert Hunter, AlessandroIuppa, Dave Jones, Christopher F. Koller, Leslie Krier, Steven B. Larsen, MonicaLindeen, Kevin Lucia, Kip May, Sally McCarty, Kent Michie, Lawrence Mirel, Alice A.Molasky Arman, John Morrison, Fred Nepple, John Oxendine, Karl Polzer, EarlPomeroy, Sandy Praeger, Guenther Ruch, Elizabeth Sammis, Kathleen Sebelius,Georgia Alvarez Siehl, Matthew Smith, Karen Weldin Stewart, Susan Voss, andBarbara Yondorf; (5) the American Medical Association, Medical Society of the Stateof New York, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy ofPediatrics, American College of Physicians, American College of EmergencyPhysicians, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and AmericanPsychiatric Association; (6) Members of Congress: Representatives Nancy Pelosi,Steny H. Hoyer, James E. Clyburn, Ben Ray Lujan, Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark,Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Frank Pallone, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Richard E. Neal; and(6) Former United States Department of Labor Officials: Phyllis C. Borzi, M. PatriciaSmith, Alan D. Lebowitz, Marc I. Machiz, and Daniel J. Maguire.There are no intervenors.v
USCA Case #19-5125B.Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 7 of 44Rulings Under ReviewAppellants seek review of the district court’s order and memorandum opinionentered on March 28, 2019 (Dkt. Nos. 78, 79). The rulings were issued by theHonorable John D. Bates in Case No. 1:18-cv-1747.C.Related CasesThis case has not previously been before this Court. Counsel is not aware ofany other related cases within the meaning of D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1)(C)./s/ Michael ShihMICHAEL SHIHvi
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 8 of 44TABLE OF CONTENTSPageGLOSSARYSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . 1ARGUMENT . 4I.II.III.The States Lack A Cognizable Injury Providing A Basis To ChallengeThe Rule. . 4A.The States’ assertions of lost tax revenue do not provide a basis tochallenge the rule. . 4B.The States’ assertions of increased regulatory costs do not providea basis to challenge the rule. . 7The States Have Failed To Show That The Rule’s Alternative CriteriaFor Creating Association Health Plans Unreasonably Implement ERISA. . 10A.ERISA does not prohibit associations acting in the interest oftheir member employers from being formed principally to providehealthcare coverage. . 11B.The alternative criteria reasonably exclude arrangements that donot act in the interest of employers. 13C.The ACA does not render the alternative criteria unreasonable. . 171.The rule is consistent with the ACA’s group-marketprovisions. . 192.The rule is consistent with the ACA’s shared-responsibilityprovisions. . 223.In all events, the States’ ACA arguments do not supply abasis for invalidating the Department’s rule. . 24The States Have Failed To Show That The Rule’s Working-OwnerProvision Unreasonably Implements ERISA. 24vii
USCA Case #19-5125IV.Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 9 of 44The States Are Not Entitled To Nationwide Relief. . 26CONCLUSION . 28CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECERTIFICATE OF SERVICEviii
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 10 of 44TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases:Page(s)ACORN v. Edgar,56 F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1995) . 27Agape Church, Inc. v. FCC,738 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . 10Air Alliance Houston v. EPA,906 F.3d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2018) . 8Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez,458 U.S. 592 (1982) . 8Arias v. DynCorp,752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014) . 4Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA,716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . 7Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC,562 U.S. 223 (2011) . 13City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,461 U.S. 95 (1983) . 9Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,568 U.S. 398 (2013) . 8Clark v. Martinez,543 U.S. 371 (2005) . 24Clarke v. Securities Indus. Ass’n,479 U.S. 388 (1987) . 7Department of Commerce v. New York,139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) . 9, 10Environmental Def. v. Duke Energy Corp.,549 U.S. 561 (2007) . 23ix
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 11 of 44Estate of Boyland v. USDA,913 F.3d 117 (D.C. Cir. 2019) . 5Harmon v. Thornburgh,878 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989) . 26King v. Burwell,135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) . 18Kisor v. Wilkie,139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) . 11Lesesne v. Doe,712 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . 27Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,572 U.S. 118 (2014) . 7MDPhysicians & Assocs., Inc. v. State Bd. of Ins.,957 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1992) . 12National Cable & Telecommc’ns Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs.,545 U.S. 967 (2005) .12, 17, 25NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc.,137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) . 21Pennsylvania ex rel. Shapp v. Kleppe,533 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1976) . 4, 5, 7Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. Profit Sharing Plan v. Hendon,541 U.S. 1 (2004) . 3, 24, 25Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t,108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) . 27Wyoming v. Oklahoma,502 U.S. 437 (1992) . 4, 5x
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 12 of 44Statutes:Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,Pub. L. No. 104-191 . 20Public Health Service Act, Pub. L. No. 78-410 . 2026 U.S.C. § 414(m) . 2126 U.S.C. § 4980H . 2226 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2)(A) . 2229 U.S.C. § 1002(5) . 2, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 2529 U.S.C. § 1135 . 10, 1842 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(a)(1) . 1942 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(5)-(6) . 18, 1942 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(d)(6) . 2542 U.S.C. § 300gg-91(e)(2) . 1942 U.S.C. § 18024(b)(4)(A) . 21Regulations:26 C.F.R. § 54.4980H-1(a)(16) . 2229 C.F.R. § 2510.3-5(g) . 2645 C.F.R. § 144.103 . 20Legislative Material:Activity Report of the Comm. on Educ. & Labor,H.R. Rep. No. 94-1785 (1977) . 12xi
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 13 of 44Other Authorities:Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicard Servs.:Application of Individual and Group Market Requirements (Sept. 1, 2011),https://go.usa.gov/xyv7c . 19, 20Insurance Standards Bulletin No. 02-02 (Aug. 2002)https://go.usa.gov/xyvfu . 2062 Fed. Reg. 16,894 (1997) . 2079 Fed. Reg. 8544 (2014) . 2283 Fed. Reg. 28,912 (2018) .6, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17Internal Revenue Serv., Q&A on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions,No. 18 (last updated Mar. 26, 2019), https://go.usa.gov/xmY7y . 23xii
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 14 of 44GLOSSARYACAPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActAPAAdministrative Procedure ActCMSCenters for Medicare and Medicaid ServicesERISAEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974HIPAAHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Actof 1996IRSInternal Revenue Service
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 15 of 44SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTThe plaintiff States have challenged a rule issued by the Department of Laborto make it easier for employers to acquire affordable, high-quality healthcare coveragefor their employees. The district court held that the States had standing; that theDepartment lacked authority under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) to adopt the rule’s two principal provisions; and that the rule must bevacated nationwide. That judgment was erroneous in every respect, as our openingbrief explained. And the States have failed to rehabilitate the court’s reasoning.With respect to standing, the States cannot dispute that the rule does notcommand any State to take, or to refrain from taking, any action. They argue onlythat the rule injures them by (1) depriving them of tax revenues, and (2) “forcing”them to spend resources because association health plans might engage in fraud andmismanagement. But, among other defects, those injuries are self-inflicted. The ruledoes not restrict the States’ ability to tax association health plans if they choose, andthe States are not required to choose to spend money to protect their citizens fromthe (speculative) possibility that yet-to-be-formed associations might behaveimproperly. Additionally, the States have articulated no reason why they fall withinERISA’s zone of interests. ERISA regulates employee benefit plans to protect theinterests of their participants and beneficiaries. Yet the States’ asserted injuries can beremedied only by vacating the rule’s expansion of affordable, high-quality healthcarecoverage—relief that is unrelated to, and indeed inconsistent with, ERISA’s purposes.
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 16 of 44As to the merits, the States have failed to demonstrate that the Departmentlacked statutory authority to adopt the rule’s alternative criteria for establishingassociation health plans. In the most critical respects—the degree and nature ofemployer control of the association health plan—those criteria establish standardsequally or more stringent than the indisputably lawful factors the Department hashistorically used to ensure that an association acts “indirectly in the interest of anemployer,” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5). The States nevertheless argue that, because theremaining criteria do not prohibit an association from offering healthcare coverage asits principal purpose, the Department’s interpretation of ERISA is unreasonable. Butneither the text nor context of ERISA imposes such a requirement, let aloneunambiguously. And although the States contend that the criteria fail to ensure thatassociations will act in their members’ interests, the States’ arguments merely secondguess the Department’s expert judgment. The rule’s reasonable construction ofERISA warrants Chevron deference.The States next argue that the criteria conflict with the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act (ACA). These arguments, which the district court did not adopt,lack merit as well. The relevant ACA provisions incorporate the very ERISA definitionsthe challenged rule construes, and thereby foreclose the States’ suggestion that theACA stripped the Department of its preexisting authority to interpret ERISA as ithas. In any event, the challenged rule does not govern how the ACA applies toassociation health plans created under it. That responsibility resides in two other2
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 17 of 44agencies: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the InternalRevenue Service (IRS). Even if those agencies have applied the ACA incorrectly—which they have not—any such error would not justify vacating the Department’sseparate rule.The States likewise have failed to demonstrate that the rule’s working-ownerprovision unreasonably implements ERISA. The States acknowledge that a workingowner can be both an employer and an employee for purposes of establishing andparticipating in an ERISA-covered benefit plan. Raymond B. Yates, M.D., P.C. ProfitSharing Plan v. Hendon, 541 U.S. 1 (2004). Contrary to the States’ contention, neitherthe Supreme Court’s decision in Yates nor ERISA’s text unambiguously forecloses theDepartment’s reasonable conclusion that a working owner who has no otheremployees may participate in association health plans.Finally, the States are not entitled to nationwide vacatur of the rule. BothArticle III and foundational principles of equity establish that any vacatur must be nobroader than necessary to provide full relief to the States the rule actually injures. Inordering otherwise, the district court has prevented the Department from maintainingthe rule in the many States that support it—to the detriment of employers that wouldotherwise use it to obtain affordable, high-quality healthcare coverage for theiremployees.3
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 18 of 44ARGUMENTI.The States Lack A Cognizable Injury Providing A Basis ToChallenge The Rule.A.The States’ assertions of lost tax revenue do not provide abasis to challenge the rule.Lost tax revenues are “generally not cognizable as an injury-in-fact for purposesof standing.” Arias v. DynCorp, 752 F.3d 1011, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citingPennsylvania ex rel. Shapp v. Kleppe, 533 F.2d 668, 672 (D.C. Cir. 1976)); Br. 19-22.Standing will exist only when the State can allege a “fairly direct link between thestate’s status as a collector and recipient of revenues” and the “administrative actionbeing challenged.” Kleppe, 533 F.2d at 672. No such link exists here. By the States’own admission (Resp. Br. 29-30), the challenged rule does not directly mandatebehavior that would reduce their tax revenues. The rule instead expands thehealthcare-coverage options available to employers by making it easier for them toform association health plans. The rule will reduce States’ tax revenues only becausesome States have voluntarily chosen not to tax coverage obtained through such plans.Such incidental injuries are insufficient to support standing. Kleppe, 533 F.2d at 670.The States argue (Resp. Br. 30) that, under Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437(1992), standing exists as long as they identify a “specific” revenue stream the rule willincidentally affect. But Wyoming reaffirmed Kleppe’s rejection of injuries based onincidental loss of tax revenues. Id. at 438 (explaining that Kleppe did not “involve[] adirect injury in the form of a loss of specific tax revenues—an undisputed fact here”);4
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 19 of 44id. at 450 (“[Wyoming’s] severance tax revenues are directly linked to the extractionand sale of coal and have been demonstrably affected by the Act.”); id. at 451 (“[Thechallenged] Act . . . directly affects Wyoming’s ability to collect severance taxrevenues.”). The direct link present in Wyoming—that the challenged law itselfregulated the conduct of severance-tax-paying utility companies—is not present here.The challenged rule imposes no restrictions on the independent and unfetteredchoices of tax-paying third parties.The States also argue (Resp. Br. 30-31) that Kleppe is inapposite because theasserted injury resulted from a natural disaster, not governmental action. Thatdistinction is illusory. In assessing standing, courts must assume arguendo the merits ofa plaintiff’s legal claims. Estate of Boyland v. USDA, 913 F.3d 117, 123-24 (D.C. Cir.2019). Accordingly, Kleppe assumed the plaintiff States’ premise that the government’sfailure to remedy the disaster was unlawful; that conduct, of course, itself injured theirbusinesses and, by extension, themselves. 533 F.2d at 671 & n.14. What matteredwas not that the harm had originally been caused by the disaster, but that theincidental effect of the government’s failure to remedy the disaster on the taxescollected was insufficient to confer standing.The States next suggest (Resp. Br. 29-31) that a reduction in their tax revenuesis not an incidental effect but the rule’s intended consequence. They emphasize thepreamble’s observation that the rule would allow employers to avoid the “potentiallysignificant cost to comply with State rules that apply to large group issuers,” such as5
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 20 of 44premium taxes. 83 Fed. Reg. 28,912, 28,943 (2018). But the States omit the very nextsentence, which confirms that States retain the authority to tax association healthplans. Id.In all events, therefore, the States fail to overcome the government’s showing(Br. 22) that, because they retain control over their own tax policies, any reduction intax revenue would be self-inflicted, and even more attenuated from the challengedrule than the injuries identified in Kleppe. There, no tax restructuring could haveeliminated the harm allegedly inflicted on the States by the government’s disasterrelief decisions. Similarly, in Wyoming, the State could not recoup lost tax revenues byimposing a different tax on out-of-State utility companies. Here, by contrast, theextent of the States’ losses depends entirely on their own taxation decisions—thussupplying an independent ground to reject this assertion of injury. Br. 26-27.Finally, the States have failed to explain how this self-inflicted injury bringsthem within the zone of interests of ERISA—or even of the ACA, insofar as thatstatute is purportedly relevant to their claim (but see infra pp. 17-18). The States believe(Resp. Br. 31-32) that, because ERISA and the ACA “preserve[] the States’ historicrole in regulating traditional insurance,” they fall within both statutes’ zones ofinterests. But the rule does not disturb the States’ regulatory role. The States’complaint is that the rule may reduce the tax revenue they collect, and they seek topreserve this revenue at the expense of depriving employees of the expanded accessto affordable, high-quality healthcare that the rule enables. This injury is “so6
USCA Case #19-5125Document #1799106Filed: 07/25/2019Page 21 of 44marginally related to”—indeed, “inconsistent with”—the interests protected byERISA and the ACA “that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended topermit the suit.” Clarke v. Securities Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399 (1987
Commerce & Industry, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce (Alaska), the East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance (Arizona), the Tucson Metro Chamber (Arizona), the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce (Florida),
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
CARDURA ORAL TABLET: CAROSPIR ORAL SUSPENSION. cartia xt oral capsule extended release 24 hour: carvedilol oral tablet. carvedilol phosphate er oral capsule extended release 24 hour: chlorthalidone oral tablet. cholestyramine light oral packet: cholestyramine light oral powder. cholestyramine oral packet: cholestyramine oral powder. clonidine .
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
DIURIL ORAL SUSPENSION doxazosin mesylate oral tablet DUTOPROL ORAL TABLET EXTENDED RELEASE 24 HOUR DYRENIUM ORAL CAPSULE EDARBI ORAL TABLET EDARBYCLOR ORAL TABLET . cholestyramine oral powder clonidine hcl oral tablet clonidine transdermal patch weekly colesevelam hcl oral packet
042187201764 Best Yet Best Yet Frz Italian Blend Vegetables 16oz 1.00 042187201641 Best Yet Best Yet Frz Mixed Vegetables 10oz 1.00 042187024905 Best Yet Best Yet Frz Mixed Vegetables 12oz 1.00 042187021256 Best Yet Best Yet Frz Mixed Vegetables 16oz 1.00 042187202211 Best Yet Best Yet Frz Mixed Vegetables 32oz 1.00