Liberty University, Inc. v. Jacob Lew

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employer mandate exaction in section 4980H is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act in part because it is not included in subchapter B of chapter 68 and no other provision deems it a tax
• observing that a neutral law of general applicability will have “no object that infringes upon or restricts practices because of their religious motivation and impose[] no burden ... on conduct motivated [only] by religious belief’
• calling it “well established” that a substantial burden does not arise where a “law or policy merely operates so as to make the practice of the individual’s religious beliefs more expensive”
• mistakenly concluding “Congress did not otherwise indicate that the employer mandate exaction qualifies as a tax for AIA purposes”
• mistakenly concluding “Congress did not otherwise indicate that the employer mandate exaction qualifies as a tax for AIA purposes”
• “Plaintiffs had the opportunity to raise these arguments in the district court and in the original briefing in this case but did not do so; thus the arguments are waived.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).