the commerce and necessary & proper clauses. on june 28, 2013, the district court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding (1) that the commerce clause challenge to the aca was foreclosed by the supreme court decision in nfib v. sebelius, (2) that the origination clause challenge failed, as the bill enacting the individual mandate was not a bill for raising revenue, and (3) that even if the bill enacting the individual mandate were a bill for raising revenue, the origination clause challenge failed because the bill was an amendment to a bill that had originated in the house of representatives. on july 29, 2014, that decision was affirmed by the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. however, the court of appeals concluded that section 5000a of the internal revenue code (sometimes called the "individual mandate") was not a "bill for raising revenue", and thus was not subject to the restriction in the origination clause of the constitution. the court of appeals stated that, therefore, there was no reason for the court to determine whether the bill originated in the house of representatives. the court also rejected sissel's contention that the law violated the commerce clause of the constitution, stating that the u.s. supreme court's decision in 2012 in the case of national federation of independent business v. sebelius "necessarily disposes of sissel's commerce clause claim." the goldwater institute challenged the aca in coons v. geithner by targeting the independent payment advisory board. according to the goldwater institute, the board “will be able to dictate how much doctors can charge for medical care, how insurance companies will pay for it, and when patients can get access to cutting-edge treatments." the litigants argued that because these decisions could not be reviewed by congress or the courts, the health care legislation violated the separation of powers doctrine. the last claims in the lawsuit were dismissed on december 19, 2012. in august 2013, a u.s. district court denied the federal government's motion for complete dismissal of a state of oklahoma lawsuit, pruitt v. sebelius, challenging some tax aspects of the aca, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. republican oklahoma attorney general scott pruitt said: "oklahoma challenged implementation of the affordable care act after the irs finalized a rule that would allow the federal government to punish 'large employers' including local government with millions of dollars of tax penalties in states without health care exchanges, which is not allowed under the health care law." ag pruitt contends that the law as passed allowed these federal penalties to be assessed in states with state insurance exchanges, but did not allow for the same fines to be assessed in states which chose not to set up a state exchange, and thus would be operating under the federal insurance exchanges. a lawsuit entitled united states house of representatives v. price (previously burwell) was filed in late 2014 concerning the cost-sharing program and implementation of the law. the case was eventually settled before the court of appeals in d.c. in february 2018, 20 states, led by texas attorney general ken paxton and wisconsin attorney general brad schimel, filed a lawsuit against the federal government alleging the aca is now unconstitutional because the individual mandate tax which nfib v. sebelius rested on was repealed by the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017. in december 2018, he declared the entire law to be unconstitutional. in march 2018, in a suit brought by texas and other states, judge reed o’connor of the northern district of texas ruled against the imposition of a federal tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive medicaid funds, ruling that while the tax was lawful, the regulation implementing it violated the nondelegation doctrine and the administrative procedure act. as the trump administration refused to appeal the decision, a coalition of states led by california led the appeal to this ruling to the fifth circuit, which upheld it in parts. both parties sought review by the supreme court, which ruled on june 17, 2021 in california v. texas that texas and the other plaintiff states did not have standing to challenge the individual mandate provision to begin with. in september 2022, the same district court judge, reed o'connor, ruled that the legal requirements to cover hiv-prevention drugs, as prescribed by section 1001(5) of the affordable care act, violate the constitution of the united states.