Steve Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes, recently released a video calling for citizens…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Steve Forbes: ‘It’s Time to Get Rid of the Biggest CON Job in Healthcare’

Steve Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes, recently released a video calling for citizens and local groups to “demand their legislators get rid of" Certificate of Need (CON) laws. Currently, 35 states and Washington, D.C. still have CON laws on the books.

Forbes outlines the flawed CON approval process that requires special government permission for private health care providers to build new hospitals or expand the services they offer. Additionally, Forbes explains how CON laws disrupt competition in the healthcare market and limit access to care while increasing costs for consumers.

In Tennessee, where CFIF has been actively advocating full repeal of the state's remaining CON laws, such laws continue to stifle the free market, limit access to health care choices…[more]

March 28, 2023 • 02:54 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's Courtroom Legal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts
Another Judicial Setback for Obama, IRS Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Wednesday, August 10 2016
Our governmental system relies upon separation of powers and checks and balances to protect individual freedom against infringement by malfeasant officials such as these, and the Court deserves credit for so explicitly and harshly exposing the Obama Administration's Orwellian shenanigans.

Leveraging federal authorities like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to persecute political opponents stands among the most grave abuses that officials can commit, as Richard Nixon learned the hard way four decades ago. 

This month, an Obama Administration and IRS attempt to evade legal reckoning for their own admitted abuses suffered a stinging judicial setback. 

Not only did the nation's second-highest court reject the administration's argument that dozens of lawsuits filed by conservative and libertarian groups against the IRS should be dismissed, the unanimous three-judge panel was caustic in its repudiation of the administration's arguments.  The Court's opinion is worth reading for the way in which it itemizes that agency's abuses and dismantles its ongoing legal efforts toward escaping the consequences of its behavior. 

The lawsuits themselves derive from numerous instances in which the IRS targeted select organizations seeking nonprofit status on the basis of their names, which in each instance indicated a conservative or anti-Administration orientation, and which the IRS itself admitted following a 2013 Inspector General's investigation.  As recognized by the Court, "this enhanced examination involved, 'among other things, a multitier review process, ... harassing and unconstitutional questions and requests for information that often required applicants to disclose donor lists, communications with members, and internet passwords and usernames.'"  Accordingly, some of the groups sued the IRS and individual officials for monetary damages, injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. 

Unable to deny any longer that it illegally "delayed, denied, and generally mishandled the applications of disfavored applicants," the IRS instead asked that the cases be dismissed because the claims became moot.  "It being plain to the Inspector General, the district court, and this court that the IRS cannot defend its discriminatory conduct on the merits," the Court summarized, "the governing issue is now whether the controversy is moot." 

In order to succeed on that claim, however, the Court pointed out that the IRS must show not only that the illegal conduct had ceased, but also that there is no reasonable expectation of recurrence and that the effects of the violation have disappeared. 

In addressing that first element, cessation of illegal conduct, the Court became particularly harsh toward the IRS: 

The IRS offers a rather puzzling explanation for why the continued failure to afford proper processing to at least some of the victim applicants should not prevent a finding of cessation.  That explanation is that the organizations whose applications were still pending 'were involved in litigation with the Justice Department...'  It is not at all clear why the IRS proposes that not ceasing becomes cessation if the victim of the conduct is litigating against it.  The IRS position is reminiscent of Catch-22 from the novel of the same name.  Under that 'catch,' World War II airmen were not required to fly if they were mentally ill.  However, anyone who applied to stop flying was evidencing rationality and therefore was not mentally ill.  'You are entitled to an exemption from flying,' the government said, 'but you can't get it as long as you are asking for it.'  Parallel to Joseph Heller's catch, the IRS is telling applicants in these cases that 'we have been violating your rights and not properly processing your applications.  You  are entitled to have your applications processed.  But if you ask for that processing by way of lawsuit, then you can't have it.'  We would advise the IRS:  if you haven't ceased to violate the rights of the taxpayers, then there is no cessation. 

The Court was equally harsh in rejecting the Obama Administration's claim that the remaining legal elements of the above test had been met: 

As to element 2, it is absurd to suggest that the effect of the IRS's unlawful conduct, which delayed the processing of appellant-plaintiffs' applications, has been eradicated when two of the appellant-plaintiffs' applications remain pending...  [M]ost tellingly, the IRS announced that '[e]ffective immediately, the use of watch lists to identify cases or issues requiring heightened awareness is suspended until further notice...'  A violation of right that is 'suspended until further notice' has not become the subject of voluntary cessation, with no reasonable expectation of resumption, so as to moot litigation against the violation of rights.  Rather, it has at most advised the victim of the violation - 'you're alright for now, but there may be another shoe falling.' 

Our governmental system relies upon separation of powers and checks and balances to protect individual freedom against infringement by malfeasant officials such as these, and the Court deserves credit for so explicitly and harshly exposing the Obama Administration's Orwellian shenanigans.  The judicial branch for the past seven years has often provided a reassuring check upon Obama Administrative abuses, although its record is obviously imperfect. 

The next administration's ability to shape that branch over the next four or eight years should therefore remain at the forefront of the American electorate's consciousness as November draws ever nearer. 

Notable Quote   
 
"Societies advance through the creation, expression, and evaluation of alternative ideas. Therefore, for almost a millennium, we have had universities where ideas and discoveries are born and different perspectives are debated in 'marketplaces of ideas' or 'learning communities.' Yet there has been a decline in rational, reasonable discourse on issues of the day on modern campuses. This has been demonstrated…[more]
 
 
— Richard Vedder, Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University and Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute
 
Liberty Poll   

FDIC insurance currently insures bank deposits up to $250,000. Do you believe Congress should raise the amount, eliminate the cap altogether and insure all deposits, or keep the amount insured at the current level?