Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In an action challenging Maine's free care laws and the MaineCare program as uncompensated takings of property, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly rejected plaintiff's takings challenge to Maine's free care laws as the laws do not effect a per se taking since the hospital is not required to serve low income patients and there is no allegation that the regulations remove all economically beneficial uses of the property, and do not effect an ad hoc taking under the Penn Central analysis; and 2) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's argument that the reimbursement rate it receives under the MaineCare program is an unconstitutional taking as there is no coercive financial incentive to participate in MaineCare and thus plaintiff's participation in the program is voluntary.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Decided August 5, 2009
Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Ebel and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge.
For Appellant: Marc N. Frenette.
For Appellee: Christopher C. Taub.