lawyer who defended kathleen sebelius

What was the testimony of Kathleen Sebelius before the House?

 · Now, Ms. Sebelius, 65, the secretary of health and human services, is the No. 1 public advocate for the health care law, the president’s top …

Who is Kathleen Sebelius?

 · Dr. Tiller has spent millions of dollars helping Sebelius and the Democratic Party through his ProKanDo PAC and non-profit. He spent $1.2 million in the 2006 election cycle alone. Much of Tiller’s...

Who endorsed Susan Sebelius for Vice President?

 · The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the ground that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the issuance of the Guidelines. Sherley v. Sebelius, 686 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2009). The plaintiffs whose standing is at issue here are Drs. Sherley and Deisher, both of whom “specialize in adult stem cell research” and who ...

Who is Sue Sebelius husband?

 · Secretary Sebelius at a 2010 suicide-prevention event. "Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has no intention of bowing to Republican demands that she resign," the New ...

Who is Kathleen Sebelius?

Kathleen Sebelius (b. May 15, 1948, in Cincinnati, Ohio) was formerly the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sebelius was sworn into office on April 28, 2009, the same day she was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 65-31, as the Obama administration declared a public health emergency for the swine flu. Sebelius was President Obama's second choice for the position after former Senator Tom Daschle withdrew from nomination after controversy over his tax records and field of work. On April 10, 2014, Sebelius resigned following the troubled Healthcare.gov website rollout, a key feature of the Affordable Care Act. Upon her resignation, Sebelius stated that she would like to take the animosity toward the Obamacare rollout with her, explaining, "If that could just leave with me, and we could get to a new chapter, that would be terrific."

What was the name of the case in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby?

Sebelius was named in both the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius. The NFIB case was argued in June 2012 and the law was upheld over a challenge under the Commerce Clause. That decision was 5-4. Sebelius resigned prior to the Hobby Lobby decision but was in office when the case was argued by Department of Justice Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. The case was decided on June 30, 2014, in favor of Hobby Lobby. Four types of contraceptives were ruled to be exempt from employer mandated healthcare.

Why did Sebelius veto the Kansas bill?

In 2008, Sebelius vetoed legislation intended to overturn the administration's rejection of permits for two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. Proponents of the legislation claimed that vetoing the bill would mean higher energy costs for Kansans. Months later, Sebelius called for a stronger federal commitment to renewable energy sources while speaking at an American Wind Energy Association conference.

When did Sebelius veto abortion?

Sebelius vetoed legislation tightening the requirements and authorizing lawsuits against providers of late term abortions in 2009, just prior to filling the office of U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, as well as vetoing similar bills in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2003.

When did Sebelius legalize automatic weapons?

In 2008, Sebelius signed into law a bill legalizing the possession of fully automatic weapons, which had been banned since 1933. The bill mainly benefited collectors and dealers delivering weapons to law enforcement agencies.

When did Sebelius veto concealed carry?

Sebelius vetoed concealed carry laws in 2004 and 2006, claiming, "While every law-abiding Kansan has a right to keep and bear arms, hidden weapons make it harder for law enforcement to do it's job, and they make Kansas' workplaces less safe."

When was Sebelius confirmed?

Sebelius was confirmed as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services on April 28, 2009, by a vote of 65-31. All dissenting votes were cast by Republican senators, while eight Republicans voted in favor of confirmation.

What is the standard for determining whether a plaintiff asserting competitor standing has been injured?

Regardless how we have phrased the standard in any particular case, however, the basic requirement common to all our cases is that the complainant show an actual or imminent increase in competition, which increase we recognize will almost certainly cause an injury in fact.

Who are the plaintiffs in the case of Sherley v. Kentucky?

The plaintiffs whose standing is at issue here are Drs. Sherley and Deisher, both of whom “specialize in adult stem cell research” and who, respectively, have received and plan to seek NIH grants for research involving ASCs. Id. at 3. They claimed to have “competitor standing” because the Guidelines would “result in increased competition for limited federal funding and [would] thereby injure [their] ability to successfully compete for ․ NIH stem cell research funds.” Id. at 4. The district court rejected that contention. First, relying upon Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1, 6 (1968), the court reasoned that a party may assert competitor standing only when the “particular statutory provision ․ invoked” reflects a purpose “to protect a competitive interest” and that the Doctors had not shown they had a protected interest in receiving research funds from the NIH. Sherley, 686 F.Supp.2d at 6. The court further concluded the cases upon which the Doctors relied established only that competitor standing applies to participants in “strictly regulated economic markets,” whereas the Doctors were “applicants for research grants.” Id. at 7. Finally, the court opined that even if the Doctors qualify as “competitors,” they would still lack standing because the “application process to receive NIH funding is [already] extremely competitive,” id., i.e., the additional competition made possible by the Guidelines would “not ‘almost surely cause [them] to lose’ funding,” id. (quoting El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, 50 F.3d 23, 27 (D.C.Cir.1995)).

How to establish Article III standing?

In order to establish their Article III standing, the Doctors must both identify an “injury in fact” that is “actual or imminent” and “fairly ․ trace [able] to the challenged action of the defendant,” and show it is “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that [their] injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). The doctrine of competitor standing addresses the first requirement by recognizing that economic actors “suffer [an] injury in fact when agencies lift regulatory restrictions on their competitors or otherwise allow increased competition” against them. La. Energy & Power Auth. v. FERC, 141 F.3d 364, 367 (D.C.Cir.1998); accord New World Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164, 172 (D.C.Cir.2002) (“basic law of economics” that increased competition leads to actual injury); see also Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2008) (doctrine of competitor standing “relies on economic logic to conclude that a plaintiff will likely suffer an injury-in-fact when the government acts in a way that increases competition or aids the plaintiff's competitors”). The form of that injury may vary; for example, a seller facing increased competition may lose sales to rivals, or be forced to lower its price or to expend more resources to achieve the same sales, all to the detriment of its bottom line. Because increased competition almost surely injures a seller in one form or another, he need not wait until “allegedly illegal transactions ․ hurt [him] competitively” before challenging the regulatory (or, for that matter, the deregulatory) governmental decision that increases competition. La. Energy, 141 F.3d at 367.

Did the district court hold that plaintiffs had standing?

The district court also held none of the other plaintiffs had standing. On appeal, those plaintiffs make no argument to the contrary, wherefore we take their lack of standing as conceded. See, e.g., Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1175, 1181 (D.C.Cir.2000) (argument not raised in opening brief on appeal is forfeited).

What did Sebelius do to help women?

Coronavirus. Coronavirus A Florida woman gave birth while battling Covid-19. She died days later. Sebelius led an HHS fully in favor of a woman’s right to abortion, in favor of controversial stem cell research involving embryos, and that wrote a law requiring insurers to pay for contraception.

What did Sebelius say about the death of a person?

At the time, Sebelius argued that such a request jeopardized the fairness of the entire system. “I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius told Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., during a Congressional hearing.

Why did Sebelius refuse to intervene in the case of Sarah Murnaghan?

Sebelius drew fire when she refused to intervene in the case of Sarah Murnaghan, whose parents wanted her to waive federal rules that said she was too young to be put on the waiting list for an adult lung. Murnaghan family

Who overruled the Food and Drug Administration decision to license morning after contraception?

But it was Sebelius herself who stepped in to overrule the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to license morning-after contraception to girls and woman of all ages.

Who said "Hold me accountable for the debacle"?

Sebelius for the most part kept cool during her grilling on Capitol Hill. She took responsibility, telling one hearing: “Hold me accountablefor the debacle. I’m responsible.”

Did Sebelius recover from the HHS?

A team of outside tech experts tapped by HHS worked quickly to help fix the site. But Sebelius never fully recovered, and she spent much of the last months of 2013 appearing before hostile Congressional committees and enduring call after call to resign.

Biography

Career

Confirmation Vote

Elections

Issues

• ACA lawsuits
  1. 1.1. See also: Obamacare lawsuits Sebelius was named in both the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius. The NFIB case was argued in June 2012 and the law was upheld over a challenge under the Commerce Clause. That decision …
• Meetings with Barack Obama
  The Government Accountability Institute found in December 2013, that between July 12, 2010, and November 30, 2013, President Obama's public schedule had no one-on-one meetings between Obama and Sebelius, who was in charge of implementing his "most important initiative.…

See more on ballotpedia.org

Governorship

Analysis

Personal

Recent News