Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against state Attorney General Rob McKenna—which accuses him of violating his professional ethics and lying to Washington residents about his attempt to overturn Obama's healthcare reform act—announced today that they'd filed an emergency injunction against McKenna, asking a judge to force McKenna to reverse his healthcare pleadings before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Three women personally delivered injunction papers to McKenna's downtown Seattle office this morning, along with 2,100 signatures condemning McKenna's weasely healthcare reform doublespeak. McKenna has told Washington residents that he only seeks to invalidate the Affordable Care Act's controversial individual mandate, and that he supports the rest of the healthcare reform law. However, he's taken the opposite position in his legal arguments and has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to kill the law in its entirety—which would invalidate numerous women's and children's healthcare provisions and bring back lifetime caps on insurance coverage, among other things.
The emergency injunction asks that a King County Superior Court judge force McKenna to submit new pleadings to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately, supporting many critical provisions in the healthcare act that he's publicly stated he supports—before the court weighs in on the constitutionality of Obama's Affordable Care Act (which is expected to happen in June).
I own this
Nikki Mackey and her pile of legal papers.
"I asked to be able to deliver these documents personally because I want to be able to face the person dictating my life expectancy—or attempting to," explained Nikki Mackey, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the McKenna suit, after she passed the pile of papers to McKenna's receptionist. (McKenna wasn't in the building.)
"We’re asking for a hearing in seven days and we expect that we will receive it," says attorney Knoll Lowney, who represents the 96 women who are suing McKenna to reverse his legal arguments.
"This is an extraordinary case and we think that the judge is going to grant the injunction because Rob McKenna admits that the briefing he submitted to the U.S. Supreme court on severability is contrary to his clients interests," Knoll continues. "It’s hard to imagine a situation ever, that a state attorney would file a brief when he doesn’t believe in it and that he admits that it’s contrary to his clients interests."