Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-2849 (ELH)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE et al.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants, by and through counsel, respectfully submit this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. As set forth in Defendants’ accompanying Memorandum of Law, this case,
brought by Plaintiff, the State of Maryland, should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim up which relief
can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Dated: November 16, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Branch Director
JEAN LIN
Acting Deputy Director

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 3

/s/ Tamra T. Moore
TAMRA T. MOORE
Senior Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Tel: (202) 305-8628
Email: Tamra.Moore@usdoj.gov

2

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and
accompanying Memorandum of Law were served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF
system on this 16th day of November 2018.

/s/Tamra T. Moore
TAMRA T. MOORE

3

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-2849 (ELH)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE et al.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 2
STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 5
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................................... 6
I. THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE OF
MARYLAND’S COMPLAINT. ........................................................................................................... 6
II. THE STATE OF MARYLAND’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. ........................................................................................12
A.
The State of Maryland Does Not Have A Cause Of Action Under the Declaratory
Judgment Act...............................................................................................................................................12
B.
The State of Maryland has not alleged “an actual controversy” as required under the
Declaratory Judgment Act. ........................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................16

i

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. City of Buena Vista,
298 F. Supp. 3d 834 (W.D. Va. 2018) ......................................................................................................13
Adams v. Bain,
697 F.2d 1213 (4th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................................... 6
Adamski v. McHugh,
304 F. Supp. 3d 227 (D.D.C. 2015) ............................................................................................................ 6
Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn,
563 U.S. 125 (2011) ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,
297 U.S. 288 (1936) .....................................................................................................................................14
Beck v. McDonald,
848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom. Beck v. Shulkin,
137 S. Ct. 2307 (2017) ............................................................................................................................. 9, 10
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Bishop v. Bartlett,
575 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................................11
California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co.,
149 U.S. 308 (1893) ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Campbell ex rel. Equity Units Holders v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc.,
86 F. Supp. 3d 464 (E.D. Va. 2015)..........................................................................................................13
CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc.,
664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................................12
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
568 U.S. 398 (2013) ................................................................................................................................ 9, 10
Clear Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake,
910 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Va. 2012), aff’d, 743 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2014) ...........................................13
D2L Ltd. v. Blackboard, Inc.,
671 F. Supp. 2d 768 (D. Md. 2009) ..........................................................................................................13
ii

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 4 of 22

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
547 U.S. 332 (2006) ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Discover Bank v. Vaden,
396 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................................................14
Doe v. Obama,
631 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................................................11
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
545 U.S. 546 (2005) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Frank Krasner Enter., Ltd. v. Montgomery Cty.,
401 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................................................11
Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko,
282 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................................................10
Fusaro v. Davitt,
327 F. Supp. 3d 907 (D. Md. 2018) ............................................................................................................ 6
Hollingsworth v. Perry,
570 U.S. 693 (2013) ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375 (1994) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Lane v. Holder,
703 F.3d 668 (4th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................. 8, 11
Lewis v. Clarke,
137 S. Ct. 1285 (2017) ................................................................................................................................... 4
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992) ...................................................................................................................... 6, 8, 10, 11
Marye v. Parsons,
114 U.S. 325 (1885) .................................................................................................................................. 7, 9
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
549 U.S. 118 (2007) .............................................................................................................................. 13, 14
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
571 U.S. 191 (2014) .....................................................................................................................................12
Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989) ....................................................................................................................................... 6

iii

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 5 of 22

O’Shea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................................................................................. 7, 8
Pedersen v. Geschwind,
141 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D. Md. 2015) ..........................................................................................................10
Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co.,
344 U.S. 237 (1952) .....................................................................................................................................15
Raines v. Byrd,
521 U.S. 811 (1997) .................................................................................................................................. 7, 8
Salt Inst. v. Thompson,
345 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004), aff’d sub nom. Salt Inst. v. Leavitt,
440 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................................12
Schilling v. Rogers,
363 U.S. 666 (1960) .....................................................................................................................................13
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petro. Co.,
339 U.S. 667 (1950) .....................................................................................................................................13
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
523 U.S. 83 (1998) ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
555 U.S. 488 (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P’ship v. Mineta,
320 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................................ 8
Texas v. Travis Cty.,
272 F. Supp. 3d 973 (W.D. Tex. 2017).....................................................................................................15
United Pub. Workers of Am. (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell,
330 U.S. 75 (1947) ................................................................................................................................ 14, 15
United States v. West Virginia,
295 U.S. 463 (1935) ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch,
577 F. Supp. 2d 880 (N.D. Tex. 2008) .....................................................................................................15
Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius,
656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 7
Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490 (1975) ....................................................................................................................................... 7

iv

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 6 of 22

White v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
913 F.2d 165 (4th Cir. 1990) ......................................................................................................................13
Whitmore v. Arkansas,
495 U.S. 149 (1990) ....................................................................................................................................... 9
WTGD 105.1 FM v. SoundExchange, Inc.,
Civ. No. 5:14-00015, 2014 WL 12819789 (W.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2014) .......................................... 14, 15
Zaycer v. Sturm Foods, Inc.,
896 F. Supp. 2d 399 (D. Md. 2012) ............................................................................................................ 6
Statutes
26 U.S.C. § 5000A .............................................................................................................................................. 2
26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a) ......................................................................................................................................... 3
28 U.S.C. § 530D ............................................................................................................................................... 3
28 U.S.C. § 2201 ............................................................................................................................................ 1, 4
42 U.S.C. § 300gg ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Pub. L. No. 115-97 ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)...................................................................................................................................... 5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)...................................................................................................................................... 6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) .......................................................................................................................................... 4

v

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 7 of 22

INTRODUCTION
The State of Maryland filed this single-count action against Defendants under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, alleging that there is “[a]n actual controversy” between the parties
“about whether key provisions of the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)] . . . are
constitutional and enforceable.” See Am. Compl. ¶ 63, ECF No. 8. The purported controversy is
primarily based on the Federal Government’s litigation position in another suit—that a particular
provision of the ACA, commonly referred to as the “individual mandate,” will be rendered
unconstitutional in 2019 due to Congress’s 2017 enactment of a tax reform bill and accordingly, the
Department of Justice will no longer defend that provision as well as provisions not severable from
the individual mandate. The State does not explain how such a litigation position alone could cause
the State to suffer any injuries. Instead, the Complaint focuses on the importance of the continued
viability of the ACA to the State, asserting that the “elimination of [the ACA]” would “destabilize[e]
[] the entire healthcare market in Maryland,” id. ¶ 45, “increase uncompensated care costs” for the
State, id. ¶ 45, and ultimately injure “Maryland’s financial well-being,” id. ¶ 54. According to the State,
unless the Court declares the entire ACA constitutional and enforceable, the State does not know
whether to continue to invest public dollars in “market reforms compatible with the [ACA].” Id. at
¶ 44. But the State has not established that it has a legal right to the ACA’s continued viability, or that
the ACA’s constitutionality is within Defendants’ control. Essentially, the State is asking this Court
to issue an advisory opinion, which the Court may not do. On this basis alone, the Complaint warrants
dismissal.
There are, however, additional reasons that the Court should dismiss this action. As an initial
matter, the State’s complaint does not allege an Article III “case or controversy” sufficient to invoke
the Court’s jurisdiction. The State does not allege the violation of a legal right by Defendants, nor
have Defendants threatened such a violation. At most, the State has alleged a disagreement with the

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 8 of 22

Federal Government’s litigation position in another suit, and proffered its conjecture about possible
future harms if the ACA were invalidated in whole or in part in the future by a court. Such allegations
do not amount to an Article III case or controversy. Nor are they sufficient to establish the State’s
standing to pursue its declaratory relief claim. As the State itself alleges, it was Congress’s recent
decision to amend the ACA (by reducing the tax penalty for the ACA’s “individual mandate” to zero)
that created the Act’s “potential constitutional infirmity,” id. ¶ 12, and it was the subsequent decision
of a coalition of states to file a suit—on the basis that the tax reform has changed the constitutional
calculus—that seeks to invalidate the ACA. Thus, any possible harmful effects that the ACA’s future
invalidation may have on the State and its healthcare insurance market—even if ultimately borne out—
would be attributable to the actions of third parties not before the Court and not to Defendants.
Even if the State of Maryland is able to overcome these jurisdictional obstacles, its single
Declaratory Judgment Act claim fails to state a claim because the State has failed to identify a cause of
action for the suit. The State’s Complaint relies solely on the Declaratory Judgment Act and does not
point to another law under which its claim arises. It is black letter law that the Declaratory Judgment
Act is procedural only and does not itself provide a cause of action. And, the Complaint fails to state
a claim for yet another reason: the parties’ opposing views regarding the constitutionality of the ACA
does not demonstrate the existence of an “actual controversy” as required under the Declaratory
Judgement Act. Accordingly, this Court has no basis to declare the ACA’s constitutionality.
Any of these asserted grounds is a reason to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Since 2010, the ACA imposed a tax penalty (“shared responsibility payment”) on individuals
who did not maintain statutorily-required minimum essential health insurance coverage (“individual
mandate”). See Am. Compl. ¶ 6 n.1, (citing 26 U.S.C. § 5000A). The tax penalty was to be the greater
of 2.5% of household income or $695. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A. In December 2017, however, Congress
2

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 9 of 22

enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 115-97, which, inter alia, amended those figures to
zero percent and $0 effective in 2019. See Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Pub. L. No. 115-97, § 11081, 131 Stat.
2054, 2092 (2017).
Two months after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted, a coalition of states (who were later
joined by two individuals) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
against the United States and other federal defendants challenging the constitutionality of the ACA as
amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See Am. Compl. ¶ 9 (citing Complaint in Texas v. United States,
No. 18-00167 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2018)). In that case, plaintiffs alleged that (1) Congress’s decision
to reduce the ACA’s shared responsibility payment to zero rendered the individual mandate
unconstitutional; (2) the remaining provisions of the ACA were not severable from the Act; and (3)
therefore the entire Act must be invalidated. See id. (citing Am. Compl., ECF No. 27, ¶ 57, Texas v.
United States, No. 18-00167 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018)). Shortly thereafter, those plaintiffs also sought
a preliminary injunction. App. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 39, Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2018). On April 9, 2018, 16 States and the District of Columbia, filed a motion
to intervene as defendants in the suit, see generally Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 15, Texas v. United States,
No. 4:18-cv-00167 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2018), which the Court granted on May 16, 2018, see Order,
ECF No. 74, Texas v. United States, 4:18-cv-00167 (N.D. Tex. May 16, 2018). The State of Maryland
is not among the 16 state intervenors. See id.
On June 7, 2018, the Attorney General submitted a letter to Congress under 28 U.S.C. § 530D,
notifying Congress of his decision not to defend the constitutionality of the ACA’s individual mandate,
26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a). The Attorney General further notified Congress that the Department of Justice
similarly will not defend the ACA’s provisions concerning “guaranteed issue,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg-1,
300gg-3, 300gg-4(a), and “community rating,” id. §§ 300gg(a)(1), 300gg-4(b), because he concurred in
the Department of Justice’s prior determination that those provisions were not severable from the
3

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 10 of 22

individual mandate. See Letter of Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III to the Honorable Paul
Ryan,

Speaker

of

the

U.S.

House

of

Representatives,

available

at

https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download. On the same day, in the Texas litigation, the
Department of Justice filed a response to the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion taking a position
consistent with the Attorney General’s letter to Congress and arguing that the Court should deny the
motion for preliminary injunction because the tax penalty would not be eliminated until 2019. See
Am. Compl. ¶ 10; Fed. Defs.’ Mem. in Response to Pls.’ App. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 92, Texas v.
United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167 (N.D. Tex. June 7, 2018).
On September 13, 2018, the State of Maryland filed this lawsuit against Jefferson B. Sessions,
III, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, the United States Department of
Justice, Alex M. Azar, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, Charles P. Rettig, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Internal Revenue Service
(collectively, “Defendants”), under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Thereafter, on
November 7, 2018, Sessions resigned from his position as the Attorney General. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Sessions’ successor, Matthew G. Whitaker, is “automatically substituted
as a party” in this case because in an official capacity claim, “[t]he real party in interest is the
government entity, not the named official.” Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1291 (2017). Nevertheless,
the State amended the complaint on November 14, 2018, naming as defendants Whitaker, in his
official capacity, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, in his official capacity. Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 8.1

The State has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent Whitaker from
appearing in an official capacity as the Acting Attorney General or to substitute Rosenstein as the
Acting Attorney General. See Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 6.
1

4

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 11 of 22

In its one-count Complaint, the State of Maryland alleges that there is “an actual controversy”
between the State and Defendants “about whether key provisions of the Affordable Care Act . . . are
constitutional and enforceable.” Am. Compl. ¶ 63. The State asserts various harms, relating to
uncertainty with respect to managing its public health programs, as a result of “any threat to the
viability of the Affordable Care Act.” Id. ¶ 20. According to the State, it “has invested enormous
amounts of state money and shifted the focus of its administrative programs” in reliance on the longterm viability of the ACA, see id. ¶¶ 6, 43, and yet the Department of Justice’s position in the Texas
litigation has left the State “without clear guidance” about whether to continue to invest its “public
dollars” in ACA-compliant reforms. Id. ¶ 44. The State also alleges that “[t]he effect of eliminating
the Affordable Care Act would be destabilizing across the entire healthcare market in Maryland,”
including potentially “increas[ing] uncompensated care costs” and creating “programmatic
uncertainties [that] pose a risk of injury to Maryland’s financial well-being.” Id. ¶¶ 45, 48, 54. For
these reasons, the State seeks a declaration from this Court “that the Affordable Care Act is
constitutional” and “that any potential constitutional infirmity arising from Congress’s recent decision
to reduce the shared responsibility payment for violating the minimum coverage requirement to zero
does not . . . invalidat[e] any of the Act’s remaining provisions.” Id. ¶ 12. It also seeks in the
alternative that the portion of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amending the tax penalty for violating the
individual mandate is unconstitutional. See id. Prayer for Relief 33.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendants move to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1). As the Supreme Court has said “many times,” “[t]he district courts of the United
States . . . are ‘courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution
and statute.”’ Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (quoting Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Accordingly, this Court has a duty to ensure
5

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 12 of 22

that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998), and “[a] plaintiff carries the burden of establishing [the court’s] subject
matter jurisdiction.” Zaycer v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 399, 403 (D. Md. 2012); see also Lujan
v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). For this reason, a plaintiff’s factual allegations in the
complaint will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion
for failure to state a claim. See Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Adamski v.
McHugh, 304 F. Supp. 3d 227, 233 (D.D.C. 2015).
Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive
issue of law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
facts alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. While
a court must treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true, it need not accept as true legal conclusions
set forth in a complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Fusaro v. Davitt, 327 F. Supp.
3d 907, 915 (D. Md. 2018).
ARGUMENT
I.

THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE
STATE OF MARYLAND’S COMPLAINT.
“Article III, § 2, of the [United States] Constitution extends the ‘judicial Power’ of the United

States only to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102. “No principle is more
fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional
limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.’” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006). “As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of
dispute, but only those ‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”
6

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 13 of 22

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 700 (2013) (internal citation omitted). Thus, Article III restricts
the authority of federal courts to resolve only those disputes that involve the “determin[ation] [of]
rights of persons or of property which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”
California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314 (1893); see also Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325,
330 (1885) (“There must be a litigation upon actual transactions between real parties, growing out of
a controversy affecting legal or equitable rights as to person or property.”). “This is a ‘bedrock
requirement.”’ Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997). As the Fourth Circuit has recognized, “[a]
federal court may not pronounce on ‘questions of law arising outside’ of such ‘cases and
controversies.’” Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 656 F.3d 253, 267-68 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ariz.
Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 132 (2011)). Nor is it “enough that the party invoking
the power of the court ha[s] a keen interest in the issue.” Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 700; Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Indeed, to review such cases “‘would be inimical to the Constitution’s
democratic character’ and would weaken ‘the public’s confidence in an unelected but restrained
Federal Judiciary.’” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org., 563 U.S. at 132; see also id. at 133 (noting that “[i]f
the judicial power were ‘extended to every question under the constitution,’ . . . federal courts might
take possession of ‘almost every subject proper for legislative discussion and decision’”) (internal
citation omitted).
Accordingly, there are several guiding principles that courts employ to determine whether a
plaintiff has alleged a “case or controversy” sufficient to invoke federal court jurisdiction. First,
“[t]here must be a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ such as to ‘assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.’” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493-94 (1974) (internal citation
omitted). Second, “[a]bstract injury is not enough. It must be alleged that the plaintiff ‘has sustained
or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury’ as the result of the challenged statute or
7

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 14 of 22

official conduct.” Id. at 494 (internal citation omitted). Finally, “[t]he injury or threat of injury must
be both ‘real and immediate,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. (internal citation omitted).
These guiding principles also inform whether a plaintiff has standing to sue, which is “[o]ne
element of the case-or-controversy requirement,” see Raines, 521 U.S. at 818, and ensures that federal
courts’ invocation of judicial power is “restrict[ed] . . . to the traditional role of Anglo-American
courts”—namely, “to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by
private or official violation of law.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009); see also
O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 493 (To satisfy Article III’s threshold requirement, a plaintiff must “‘allege some
threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.’”). It is for this reason that these
same Article III limiting principles are reflected in the Supreme Court’s requirement that a plaintiff
(1) “ha[s] suffered an ‘injury in fact’—that is, ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical’; (2) that there
is ‘a causal connection between the injury and the conduct’ of which the plaintiff complains; and (3)
that it is ‘likely . . . that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 56061.
In this case, the State has failed to allege an injury in fact. To begin with, it has not alleged any
“invasion of a legally protected interest,” let alone a legally protected interested violated by
Defendants. See Taubman Realty Grp. Ltd. P’ship v. Mineta, 320 F.3d 475, 480 (4th Cir. 2003) (“‘The
injury-in-fact element requires that the plaintiff suffer an invasion of a legally protected interest . . . .”)
(internal citation omitted); see also Lane v. Holder, 703 F.3d 668, 672 (4th Cir. 2012) (a plaintiff “must
demonstrate that [its] claim rests upon ‘a distinct and palpable injury’ to a legally protected interest”)
(internal citation omitted). The Amended Complaint rests entirely on the State’s disagreement with
Defendants’ litigation position in the Texas case, that the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional
(once the relevant tax reform in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act goes into effect in 2019) and that the
8

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 15 of 22

“community rating” and “guaranteed issue” provisions of the ACA are not severable from the
individual mandate. See Am. Compl. ¶ 63. But the State has not shown (and indeed it cannot show)
that it has a legal entitlement to the ACA’s continued validity. Without such an entitlement, the State
cannot show that Defendants’ litigation position in Texas has “affect[ed] legal or equitable rights.”
Marye, 114 U.S. at 330. Rather, all that the State has alleged is a difference of opinions between the
parties, which cannot by itself serve as the basis for a justiciable action. See, e.g., United States v. West
Virginia, 295 U.S. 463, 473 (1935) (no actual controversy where complaint “states a difference of
opinion between the officials of two governments” regarding the federal government’s authority to
control navigation of river and where federal government failed to allege that any right had been
threatened by State’s actions).
To be sure, the State also asserts that Defendants’ litigation position in the Texas litigation has
“left [the State] without clear guidance” about how to spend its “public dollars,” see Am. Compl. ¶ 44,
and has “put at risk” the State’s “investments” in its healthcare insurance market, see id. ¶ 44. But
these type of uncertainties are the natural byproduct of litigation concerning a statute’s legality; they
do not by themselves create a separate judiciable dispute even between the parties to that litigation,
let alone for third parties, such as the State of Maryland.
The State fails to meet the other injury-in-fact elements as well. “[T]he Supreme Court ‘has
emphasized repeatedly,’ [that] an injury-in-fact ‘must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal
sense.’ The complainant must allege an injury to himself that is distinct and palpable, as opposed to
merely abstract.’” Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 271 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). If
injury-in-fact is based on future harm, then the ‘threatened injury must be certainly impending to
constitute injury in fact”; “[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient.’” Clapper v. Amnesty
Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990)). And
“[a]lthough ‘imminence’ is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its
9

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 16 of 22

purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes.’”
Beck, 848 F.3d at 271 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564-65 n.2).
Here, the State’s purported injuries are based on its predictions about how the State and its
healthcare market might be harmed in the future if the ACA were eliminated in its entirety—a position
Defendants do not even advocate in the Texas litigation—or if the individual mandate and the
“community rating” and “guarantee issue” provisions were invalidated by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas. The foundation of the State’s asserted future harms is comprised of
layer upon layer of conjecture. First, it is speculative that the ACA would be invalidated (in whole or
in part) by the federal district court in Texas, or by any other court. The State then posits the potential
harmful effects that could flow from any such an invalidation. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 51 (alleging that
invalidation of the ACA could “potentially wast[e] public effort and funds in pursuit of programs that
could disappear or become unworkable”) (emphasis added)). In fact, it is unclear what the potential
net effect on the State’s health insurance market would be if just the individual mandate is invalidated
or if the individual mandate plus the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” provisions are
invalidated. And the behaviors of insurers and consumers in response to the ACA’s hypothetical
invalidation could also affect significantly whether the State itself would be harmed. In other words,
the State’s purported future harms are “premised on [a] ‘highly attenuated chain of possibilities,’” and
thus, are simply “too speculative or generalized” to constitute the type of “certainly impending” injury
necessary to establish standing. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 410; see also Pedersen v. Geschwind, 141 F. Supp.
3d 405, 412, 415 (D. Md. 2015); see, e.g., Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 273-77 (4th Cir.), cert. denied
sub nom. Beck v. Shulkin, 137 S. Ct. 2307 (2017) (holding that the alleged “increased risk of future
identity theft” and “costs of protecting against the same” were too speculative to confer standing on
the plaintiffs); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 322 (4th Cir. 2002) (“The injury-

10

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 17 of 22

in-fact prong of the standing inquiry cannot be met by citizens hypothesizing about the speculative
effects of an absence of development.”).
Nor is the State able to show that its purported future injury is fairly traceable to Defendants.
“‘The ‘case or controversy’ limitation of Art[icle] III still requires that a federal court act only to redress
injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and not injury that results
from the independent action of some third party not before the court.’” Doe v. Obama, 631 F.3d 157,
161 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal citation omitted); Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419, 423 (4th Cir. 2009) (injury
in fact must be “fairly traceable”). Defendants, of course, have no authority to declare the ACA, or
any portions of it, unconstitutional. They also have no control over how the United States District
Court in the Northern District of Texas would rule on the constitutionality and enforceability of the
ACA, any more than they have control over the Texas plaintiffs’ challenge to the enforceability of the
ACA based on Congress’s tax reform (or the state intervenor defendants’ defense of the ACA). And,
as the State acknowledges, “any potential constitutional infirmity” derives from “Congress’s recent
decision to reduce the shared responsibility payment for violating the minimum coverage requirement
to zero,” see Am. Compl. ¶ 12, and the subsequent decision of “a group of states, led by Texas,” to file
a lawsuit challenging the Act’s constitutionality on the basis of that amendment, see id. ¶ 9; see, e.g.,
Lane, 703 F.3d at 674 (“Nothing in the challenged legislation or regulations directs FFLs to impose
such charges. Because any harm to the plaintiffs results from the actions of third parties not before
this court, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate traceability.”); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562 (explaining
that a plaintiff is unlikely to satisfy the causation element of standing where any alleged future harm
“‘depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose
exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict’”);
Frank Krasner Enter., Ltd. v. Montgomery Cty., 401 F.3d 230, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2005) (gun show promoter
and exhibitor lacked standing to challenge county ordinance prohibiting use of county funds by any
11

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 18 of 22

venue that permits gun displays where unfettered decision of venue to rent to plaintiffs (or not)
“stands directly between plaintiffs and the challenged conduct in a way that breaks the causal chain”);
Salt Inst. v. Thompson, 345 F. Supp. 2d 589, 600 (E.D. Va. 2004), aff’d sub nom. Salt Inst. v. Leavitt, 440
F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2006) (prior published reports and studies addressing the effect of sodium intake
on blood pressure “are more likely the cause of any injury allegedly suffered by” plaintiffs, rather than
defendants’ statements and recommendations about the same). In short, if the ACA were invalidated
as a result, it would be the action of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.
Because the above discussed deficiencies take this case outside of the scope of Article III, this
Court is without power to resolve the State of Maryland’s purported dispute with Defendants.
II.

THE STATE OF MARYLAND’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM
UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED.
A. The State of Maryland Does Not Have A Cause Of Action Under the
Declaratory Judgment Act.
In addition to its jurisdictional deficiencies, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. First, the Complaint fails to allege a cause of action. The State’s single-count
Complaint relies exclusively on the Declaratory Judgment Act, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19, 62-64, and seeks
a declaration—unmoored from any alleged violation of law or threat of enforcement—that the ACA
is constitutional and enforceable. But the Declaratory Judgment Act does not create a substantive
cause of action that would permit the State to obtain at will abstract declarations of opinion from a
federal court. Instead, its operation is procedural only. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures,
LLC, 571 U.S. 191, 199 (2014) (Courts have “long considered the operation of the Declaratory
Judgment Act to be only procedural, leaving substantive rights unchanged.”). Indeed, under binding
Fourth Circuit precedent, the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot “extend[]” this court’s jurisdiction or
“create[] any substantive rights.” CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 664 F.3d 46, 55-56 (4th Cir.
12

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 19 of 22

2011). “Put differently, a declaratory judgment is simply the remedial procedural vehicle by which a
court can declare the rights of parties as to an underlying legal dispute over which jurisdiction is
otherwise proper.” ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. City of Buena Vista, 298 F. Supp. 3d 834, 843 (W.D. Va.
2018). To maintain a declaratory judgment action, a plaintiff must point to a cause of action arising
under some other law. See Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 677 (1960); see also Campbell ex rel. Equity
Units Holders v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 464, 471 n.7 (E.D. Va. 2015). The State has failed
to do so. Accordingly, the State’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Clear
Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake, 910 F. Supp. 2d 861, 871 n.8 (E.D. Va. 2012) (dismissing
Declaratory Judgment Act claim where plaintiff did not properly plead a claim “over which [the court]
has an independent basis for exercising original jurisdiction.”), aff’d 743 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2014).
B. The State of Maryland has not alleged “an actual controversy” as required
under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Even if the State of Maryland had properly plead an independent cause of action sufficient to
seek relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, see Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petro. Co., 339 U.S. 667, 67172 (1950), this action still warrants dismissal because the State does not allege “an actual controversy”
as required under the Act. “The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that, ‘in a case of actual
controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States may declare the rights and other
legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration . . . .’” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
549 U.S. 118, 126 (2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)).

For purposes of a declaratory judgment

action, an “actual controversy” exists only where “there is a substantial controversy, between parties
having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
declaratory judgment.” Id. at 127. This inquiry is largely similar to the above analysis concerning the
State’s failure to establish an Article III case or controversy because courts frequently have viewed
“‘this inquiry through the lens of [the Article III] standing doctrine.’” D2L Ltd. v. Blackboard, Inc., 671
F. Supp. 2d 768, 775 (D. Md. 2009) (internal citation omitted); see also White v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
13

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 20 of 22

913 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The test for a ‘case or controversy’ . . . is whether the dispute is
definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.’” (internal
citation omitted)).
In the Declaratory Judgment Act context, a plaintiff generally is able to demonstrate the
requisite “substantial controversy” by claiming a “genuine threat of [government] enforcement,” see
MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 128-29, by showing that “payment of a claim is demanded as of right,” id. at
131, or “where payment is made,” by establishing that “the involuntary or coercive nature of the
exaction preserves the right to recover the sums paid or to challenge the legality of claim,” id. In other
words, “a declaratory-judgment plaintiff is injured when ‘an assertion of rights by the defendant’ forces
the plaintiff either to pursue ‘arguably illegal behavior or abandon[] that which he claims a right to
do.’” WTGD 105.1 FM v. SoundExchange, Inc., Civ. No. 5:14-00015, 2014 WL 12819789, at *7 (W.D.
Va. Sept. 12, 2014) (internal citation omitted); see Discover Bank v. Vaden, 396 F.3d 366, 371 (4th Cir.
2005) (The Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes “a party which traditionally would be a defendant .
. . [to] bring a preemptive suit in federal court, thus accelerating the claim against it.”).
The State’s ability to demonstrate the existence of a concrete injury is all the more important
in cases involving a request that a federal court declare the constitutionality of a statute. The Supreme
Court has long held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not allow federal courts to “render
advisory opinions. For adjudication of constitutional issues ‘concrete legal issues, presented in actual
cases, not abstractions' are requisite.” United Pub. Workers of Am. (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89
(1947). It is for this reason that the need for courts to carefully assess whether declaratory judgment
plaintiffs have demonstrated “an actual controversy” between the parties is even greater in cases
seeking a determination of the constitutionality of a law. See Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S.
288, 346–47 (1936). To that point, without the presentation of “concrete legal issues,” a plaintiff’s
request that a federal court declare the constitutionality of a federal or state enactment amounts to
14

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 21 of 22

nothing more than a general objection about the “political expediency” of the challenged law, which
is “beyond the competence of courts to render such a decision.” Mitchell, 330 U.S. at 89; see, e.g., Villas
at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 577 F. Supp. 2d 880, 882-83 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (finding that
city’s Declaratory Judgment Act counterclaim requesting a declaration that city ordinance “is
constitutional and valid under applicable law and . . . enforceable” sought impermissible “advisory
opinion” because it was not “grounded in a specific and concrete threat”); Texas v. Travis Cty., 272 F.
Supp. 3d 973, 980 (W.D. Tex. 2017) (same).
Here, the State of Maryland does not allege that Defendants have asserted any right against it,
the assertion of which has forced the State to “pursue ‘arguably illegal behavior or abandon that which
[it] claims a right to do.” See WTGD 105.1 FM, 2014 WL 12819789, at *7. To the contrary, the State
merely alleges that Defendants have made “pronouncements” concerning their belief about the ACA’s
constitutionality, see Am. Compl. ¶ 44, and have declined to defend certain portions of the ACA in a
lawsuit brought by several states (and two individuals), id. ¶ 10, and that as a result, the State currently
faces uncertainty with respect to future public policy decisions. These “pronouncements” and the
decision not to defend the ACA are insufficient to establish a “controvers[y] over legal rights” between
the State of Maryland and Defendants. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 243-44 (1952)
(emphasis added); see also WTGD 105.1 FM, 2014 WL 12819789, at * 8 (“The Complaint . . . does not
plausibly allege that ‘an assertion of rights by the defendant’ put Plaintiffs in this position.” (internal
citation omitted) (emphasis added)). Indeed, Defendants’ “pronouncements” were not asserted
against the State of Maryland, nor have these pronouncements nor the Defendants’ litigation position
forced the State to take any position. See WTGD 105.1 FM, 2014 WL 12819789, at *8. Without the
existence of an actual controversy between the parties, the State invites this Court to issue an advisory
opinion. The Court should decline the State’s invitation, which seeks to improperly expand Article
III beyond its jurisdictional limits, and dismiss the State’s Declaratory Judgment Act claim.
15

 Case 1:18-cv-02849-ELH Document 11-1 Filed 11/16/18 Page 22 of 22

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should dismiss this action.

Dated: November 16, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS
Branch Director
JEAN LIN
Acting Deputy Director
/s/ Tamra T. Moore
TAMRA T. MOORE
Senior Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Tel: (202) 305-8628
Email: Tamra.Moore@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

16