Emord & Associates is dedicated to serving the needs of its national client base. The firm’s attorneys represent clients in constitutional and administrative law cases before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

FDA  | USDA | Import | Export | FTC | Advertising | Compliance | Dietary Supplements | Foods | Labeling | Prescription & OTC Drugs | Cosmetics | Animal Feeds & Supplements | DEA  | Controlled Substances | Medicare | Licensing | Commercial Litigation | Contracts | Business | Civil Litigation | Constitutional Law

Copyright © 2010 Emord & Associates, P.C.  All rights reserved | Sitemap  | Washington, D.C. | Virginia | Arizona

On May 12, 2010, Attorneys for the United States Citizens Association (USCA) and two individual plaintiffs (James Grapek and Maurice Thompson) filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No. 111-148, H.R. 3590).  The suit contends that the federal government has no constitutional power to compel citizens to purchase a particular product with after tax dollars.  No such power exists in Article One of the United States Constitution under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3). The suit also contends that the mandatory requirement violates the freedom of association protected by the First Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. I) by forcing Americans to obtain unwanted insurance; violates the liberty provision of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (U.S. Const. amend. V) by forcing Americans to buy a product, insurance, that they wish not to buy; and the right to privacy protected as a liberty right under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments because it compels them to divulge confidential health information to an insurer against their will.  Review the pleadings below.

Latest Press Release:  (February 28, 2011) Judge Certifies Counts 2, 3, and 4 for Immediate Appeal

• USCA Amended Complaint
• Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
• USCA Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
• Brief Amicus Curiae of the Alliance for Natural Health-USA
• Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

• November 22, 2010 Memorandum Opinion on Motion to Dismiss
• USCA Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
• USCA Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
• February 28, 2011 Judgment under FRCP 54(b)

Pleadings & Court Documents:

District Court

Court of Appeals

• USCA Opening Brief
• USCA Reply Brief