Talk:Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

proposed deletion

This article appears to be on the same subject as Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, but with much less information, and what is here appears to be biased in violation of WP:POV as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs)

Its the first of three cases the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear later this month. See the individual and unique docket numbers and its clear this case (and argument) has separate issues from the other one mentioned (which is actually 2 separate cases, again see each unique docket number). Deleting it leaves only gives Florida's POV and denies the counter-balanced of the Government's position. Its under developed because people kept removing links to "see also" from one article over the other. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The US Supreme Court case Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida is the final appellant stage of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. One article is enough. We do not need to create separate articles for the first instance trials of Supreme Court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Therefore I propose to merge Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services to Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida. --Pengyanan (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you believe they're the same case? The U.S. Supreme Court docket seems to indicate that they're separate cases, as does the hearings calendar. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have a sufficiently informed opinion to cast a !vote on the merge being proposed here; It seems there are many related but distinct cases being argued over the next few days. I happened across an article that lists the various issues being argued, and when their arguments are scheduled: [1]. This might be useful to distinguish among the several separate cases now before the Court. My gut is that combining article is premature; it is probably wisest to defer any combining until the Court rules, and then move to combine them along the same lines in which the Court combines the cases in its opinions. TJRC (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The 11th Circuit decision described at Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services is at issue in both SCOTUS appeals Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (No. 11-398) and a separately docketed appeal captioned, like the 11th circuit's opinion, Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 11-400). There are clearly two separate certiorari petitions at http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx, one under each title, both citing within to the same 11th circuit decision. One petition was filed by the federal government, the other by the state governments, and as can be clearly seen in this briefing schedule, they deal with separate legal issues. And as seen here, the Supreme Court granted both petitions (thus deciding to hear the appeals) but did not consolidate them (while it did consolidate two other PPACA-related petitions in the same order). The Court instead scheduled separate oral arguments (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PDFs/022112zor.pdf), all of which suggests that it may issue separate opinions even though they arose from the same lower court opinion.

The best solution at least for the time being might actually be to have three articles developed separately: one for each of the two SCOTUS cases arising therefrom to separate out the issues and how the separate oral arguments proceed; and one for the background of the 11th Circuit opinion and District Court proceedings to avoid just duplicating that in each SCOTUS case. Then after the final SCOTUS opinions are handed down we can figure out how or whether to merge them together, though I suspect we will maintain them separately. And if you want a good excuse to have a separate article on a lower appellate court opinion, "it generated two separate SCOTUS opinions" sounds fairly good to me. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think three articles would be a bit much, personally. There might be some duplication between the two case articles, but I don't think it rises to the level to be worrisome (or worth the trouble, rather). Most of the other background can go into the Act's article (or a "history of Act" article if it really gets unwieldy). That makes the most sense to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cross-reference: Talk:Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services#Move? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The case under the Supreme Court is Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida and not the other way around. Under Supreme Court cases, the petitioner, meaning the person/group who lost in the previous trial, is first and since the solicitor general petitioned a writ of certiorari, meaning he is acting on behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services to question previous ruling (they lost), this article should not be merged with Florida v. Dept of HHS since it would imply that the articles are the same or interchangeable. Florida v. Dept of HHS case is under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the trial prior to the Supreme Court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.127.26.42 (talk) April 5, 2012

Redirect to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?

Should this article now be redirected to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be merged in my opinion. Nizate (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be merged. The case is independently notable, but there isn't enough to say about it to really justify a separate article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Merged, SPat ^talk 23:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)