← 638 F.3d 24 - Massachusetts v. Sebelius

Massachusetts v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis

638 F.3d 24 · 2011

Citation profile

cited by 14 later decisions

states following

June 2019

most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395C (§ 1811 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395D (§ 1812 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395J (§ 1831 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396K (§ 1912 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Mead Corp. · Auer v. Robbins · Gonzales v. Oregon · General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“'[d]eference is not given ... to a ' post hoc rationalization advanced by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack' or when there is reason to 'suspect that the interpretation does not reflect the agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Prunckun v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services Oldham v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services
“health insurance program for low-income individuals ... funded by both the federal government and state governments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Me. Pooled Disability Trust v. Hamilton
“CMS's interpretation of its regulations resolves this question and is entitled to deference.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Prunckun v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services Oldham v. Delaware Dept. of Health & Social Services

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.