User:Sech12/sandbox

Role in Subsequent Decisions
Bob Jones University v. Simon has been cited in multiple cases in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court since its 1974 ruling. The exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act laid out in Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon have been followed in several cases,  notably in its "companion case" Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc.. In Alexander, the Supreme Court considered the exemptions in determining that a non-profit organization's suit against the IRS based on constitutional claims would not continue under the Anti-Injunction Act. The rulings in Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon and Alexander are considered a stricter reading of the Anti-Injunction Act for limiting the suits allowed to proceed before the enforcement of taxation by the IRS.

Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon has also been cited and distinguished in the decisions of other cases. In Security and Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp Ltd. as considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the use of liens by the IRS were considered to be too different from the facts of Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon for application of the earlier ruling without careful consideration. When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the exceptions put forth by Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon were used in part to determine the case.

More recently, Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon has been cited and considered in a suite of cases concerning the legislation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In cases such as ''Commonwealth ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius and Halbig v. Sebelius'', injunctions against the IRS in regards to tax policies related to the Affordable Care Act were not granted by the District Courts. In the lower court rulings of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, the Anti-Injunction Act was found to be not applicable in either case. This was primarily due to the use of the term 'penalties' in the language of the Affordable Care Act, which the language of the Anti-Injunction Act does not explicitly cover.

Partial Overruling and Criticism
In the 1984 ruling South Carolina v. Regan, Justice William Brennan delivered the Supreme Court's opinion detailing that the Anti-Injunction Act could not be used to prevent a legal suit if there did not exist a judicial process through which a plaintiff could make their case .This occurred due to the state of South Carolina lacking a direct method of challenging the removal of bearer bonds. The ruling therefore expanded on the instances in which the Anti-Injunction Act was not applicable, beyond the two exceptions set out by Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon and the earlier court case  Enochs v. Williams Packing Co., and thus partially overruling Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon with the modifications to the use of the Anti-Injunction Act concerning future suits.

Several cases have also criticized the criteria for exemption as discussed in Bob Jones v. Simon. In the dissenting opinion of Alexander, Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the use of the Anti-Injunction Act to prevent suits based on constitutional arguments until after the IRS had acted disrupted the "system of checks and balances provided by judicial review".

Another such case is that of Kahn v. United States, in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered the 3 criteria test provided by Mathews v. Eldridge to determine whether a lawsuit should be allowed to be litigated before policy enforcement by the IRS, even if a suit could be brought afterwards. The 3 criteria test is considered by some legal scholars to be valid in any case concerning the application of due process, including those of taxation.