This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Federal judge rules mandated national health care participation unconstitutional
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, District Court of Eastern Virginia, has ruled invalid the part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into U.S. law this year requiring U.S. citizens to obtain minimal health insurance coverage beginning in 2014.
In the conclusions of the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius document released Dec. 13, Hudson wrote that Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — the final, amended version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that was passed by Congress on March 23, 2010. Section 1501 of the ACA mandates health care coverage, “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
Supporters of the health care reform legislation had used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states, as a basis for the constitutionality of the requirement.
‘Fined for doing nothing’
Hudson wrote in his decision, “An individual’s personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach” of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
In a press briefing following the decision, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “We disagree with the ruling. Obviously the individual responsibility portions of the Affordable Care Act are the basis and the foundation for examining and doing away with insurance company discrimination on behalf of preexisting conditions. Obviously, without an individual responsibility portion in the law, you could not find yourself dealing with preexisting conditions because the only people that would likely get involved in purchasing health care would be the very sick. And obviously, that would be enormously expensive.”
|
|
“Today we prevailed,” stated Virginia’s State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a press release issued shortly after Hudson’s decision was announced. “This is a great day for the Constitution! This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution.”
Cuccinelli added, “The insurance mandate penalizes people for not engaging in commerce. In other words, you can get fined for doing nothing.”
The Court also wrestled with the issue of whether Section 1501 can be separated from the rest of the ACA “while leaving the remainder intact,” according to the court documents. Hudson ruled to sever with circumspection Section 1501 of the ACA, as well as any directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to Section 1501.
Earlier court cases, including a district court in Virginia, had ended in decisions supporting the constitutionality of the bill. Gibbs said, “This was the Eastern District of Virginia; 115 miles away, the Western District Court of Virginia ruled November 30th to uphold the same provision that the Eastern District and its judge had ruled against. … [another] court — the Eastern District of Michigan on October 7th ruled in favor of the law as it was passed.”
Other state actions
However, other states also have Constitutional challenges to the ACA on the docket.
“The federal court’s ruling is consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the American people. There are limits to congressional power, and Congress has overstepped its limits here by forcing Americans to purchase health insurance — even against their will,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement in response to the ruling in Virginia.
“The court’s ruling is an important step toward limited government and reducing federal mandates. The judge’s decision bodes well for Texas’ position in its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare,” he wrote.
According to the press release from Abbott’s office, there is a 20-state coalition against the federal health care law that includes Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Alaska. The lawsuit is filed in the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Florida. The states are joined in this lawsuit by the National Federation of Independent Business, and individual plaintiffs Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg.
The lawsuit was filed immediately after President Obama signed the bill into law. The legal action specifically challenges the ACA and names the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor as defendants because those federal agencies are charged with implementing the Act’s constitutionally impermissible provisions, according to the release.
This decision should be topic that has more public discussion and understanding. I feel, as do many others, it will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Part of the ACA includes in essence a unique “tax” or “fee” for the “inaction” of not buying health care insurance. The Supreme Court has a history of not striking down Congressional powers, and in my opinion, in the end it will be hesitant to restrict Congressional power on this issue. If the challenge is upheld, it will neutralize much of the mandated revenue source to subsidize the associated increased health care costs in the reform.
The pending rule in which 20 states are represented will be telling as to the legal support for Judge Hudson’s decision.
– Douglas W. Jackson, MD
Chief Medical Editor, Orthopedics Today