U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia had struck down the centerpiece of the national health care plan: the mandatory requirement that all citizens get health care coverage. The lengthy 42-page opinion details how the law falls outside of interstate commerce jurisdiction — the concern that I previously voiced in a column.
Hudson ruled that the mandatory requirement “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” However, he left the other parts of the law intact.
Notably, two other courts in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. have upheld the law.
This is an important victory for Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, who has a stand-alone challenge from the giant challenge filed in Florida. Twenty attorneys general and governors have filed a challenge in Pensacola, Florida. Cuccinelli’s challenge will now move in tandem with the other case, which will move roughly together toward the Supreme Court.
On a practical level, this could be a problem for the Administration. With roughly half of the states challenging the law, you already have a reluctance to enforce the law. This will add to that resistance. However, since the requirement will not kick in for a couple years, there is no need for an injunction.
Today’s case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).
Judge Hudson previously denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, warning that the mandatory insurance provision “literally forges new ground and extends Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high-water mark.” While I believe that the Administration has strong cases supporting its position, I agree with that statement. It is difficult to see what would be left of federalism guarantees in the Constitution if Congress has this jurisdictional authority. It is certainly a matter upon which people of good faith can disagree. I strongly encouraged members of Congress to allow states to opt in — perhaps with a reward for such participation in terms of funding. That would have avoided this ruling and much of the constitutional controversy.
It is important to remember that this ruling has little to do with the merits of national care reform. This is about how to interpret the Constitution and the scope of congressional power.
Here is a copy of Judge Hudson’s opinion: Health Care Ruling
There has been a quesiton raised about that fact that Hudson is an investor in Campaign Solutions, a Republican consulting firm which has worked for candidates opposing health care reform, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. If he is still an active investor, I would be frankly surprised. I believe such connections would be a serious mistake for any prosecutor or judge. While I certainly understand people raising the issue, there is no evidence that this opinion was motivated by anything other than Hudson’s well-known conservative view of the Constitution. The opinion is a thoughtful and comprehensive take on the issue. Many can disagree with it and the Administration clearly has solid arguments to make before the Court of Appeals. However, it appears motivated by the deep-seated philosophical convictions and cannot be dismissed as a political screed.
Jonathan Turley
Gyges,
I agree with you that universal coverage would not only settle these law suits, it would be the best possible outcome for the country. Maybe if the House Dems stop the Bush tax cut “deal”, we can tell the Teapublicans that they can have their tax giveaways if Medicare for all is approved. It is just a dream, but a good one.
Bdaman,
While there are good arguments that Congress went too far on this particular item in the Affordable Health Care Act, a quote from a politician who is nothing but partisan on any non- Republican issue, does not hold water. Why don’t you or Rep. Cantor mention how many judges have upheld the law to date? I wonder why.
I think Tom H’s earlier statement concerning the full 4th and 11th circuits and their handling of this legislation is a cogent statement and I believe that the health care act will survive in one piece. If it does make it to the Supremes all bets are off because they are so partisan that anything is possible. If a corporation can be labeled a person that actually has superior rights than you and I when it comes to campaign financing, not to mention their “decision” in Bush v. Gore, I would not be as confident that the AHCA will come out of that fray unscathed.
Buddha,
Their forgetfulness is especially odd since that fact is used as the rational for exempting insurance companies from anti-monopoly regulation (not that that’s enforced all that much any more).
I wonder if the long term effect of joining the rest of the first world in banning for profit primary medical insurance would be worth the battle. Of course we could sidestep several battles by saying “everyone’s covered by this federal program, so there’s no need to mandate coverage.”
From a statement by incoming House majority whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.):
“Today’s ruling is a clear affirmation that President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. The efforts of Governor McDonnell and Attorney General Cuccinelli have raised legitimate concerns and ensured that the people of the Commonwealth will have their rights protected against this unconstitutional law. Ultimately, we must ensure that no American will be forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance they may not need, want, or be able to afford.
“To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately.
Cantor also promised to pass “a clean repeal of ObamaCare” once the Republicans take over the House in January.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255170/cantor-calls-direct-appeal-supreme-court-daniel-foster
Coinciding with a federal judge’s ruling invalidating a key element of the health care reform law, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds support for the landmark legislation at a new low – but division on what to do about it.
The law’s never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today it’s slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling. (It was about the same, 44 percent, a year ago.) Fifty-two percent are opposed, and that 9-point gap in favor of opposition is its largest on record since the latest debate over health care reform began in earnest in summer 2009.
More also continue to “strongly” oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent.
What to do about it is another question: People who don’t support the law fragment on how to proceed, with a plurality in this group, 38 percent, saying they’d rather wait and see before deciding on a direction. Among the rest, 30 percent would repeal parts of the law, while about as many, 29 percent, favor repealing all of it.
Health care reform has lacked broad support – as also was the case when it last was debated in 1994 – given the public’s conflicting priorities and concerns. While many aspects of the reform law win broad backing, its rules, funding mechanisms and the issue of government involvement raise doubts. And while many Americans are concerned about their future costs and coverage, most are satisfied with their current coverage, care and even costs – raising fears that a new system could do more harm than good.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html
Cato:
ooooooops!!:=)
Hudson has been a political activist who has received dividends from the republican group “Campaign Solutions”.
eniobob:
I have heard MA’s system is on the ropes. Romney really did a bad job with that.
BTW:
wasn’t the health care bill,modeled after another healt care bill that I believe was hailed as being innovation and creative?
“The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report) that had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform
“Without a public option it’s just a gift to the insurance companies since the law doesn’t really cap the cost of high-risk pools or limit the rise in insurance costs.”
Yep.
And to reiterate:
It boggles the mind that the fundamental underpinning of insurance – distribution of risk across a pool – was totally ignored by Congress when they failed to realize that the largest possible risk pool is everyone.
But then they couldn’t have propped up their buddies from the insurance industry and lobby, but hey, what’s a few hundred thousand people’s lives when there’s money to be made!
If there had been a public option a universal buy-in of some sort (like Medicare)to help subsidize the cost would be appropriate. Without a public option it’s just a gift to the insurance companies since the law doesn’t really cap the cost of high-risk pools or limit the rise in insurance costs. There are though ‘outs’ built into the law for states so it’ll be interesting to see what the appeals courts do with this ruling.
Swarthmore mom: actually it is the Clinton activist judges that will cause you to have to pay more for healthcare, the Bush judge is the one that says it is unconstitutional.
I think it is funny that we no longer need to wait to hear how a judge will rule and just look at their party affiliation.
Good comment Tom H, couldn’t say it any better.
“I think it’s mandatory in every state eniobob but not mandatory for you to own a car.”
“So while a state mandate might be perfectly constitutional, a federal one might not.”
Both points taken.
Swarthmore mom,
I think you’re right, but I’m not sure that’s what this is.
We will be paying for these activist judges that George W. Bush appointed for a long time.
Well, the federal Congress has only the powers listed in Article I of the Constitution. State legislatures are different — they have general police powers and aren’t limited to certain enumerated powers.
So while a state mandate might be perfectly constitutional, a federal one might not.
I think it’s mandatory in every state eniobob but not mandatory for you to own a car.
Maybe this is apples and oranges,but in Jersey its mandatory to have car insurance to be able to drive.No if and or buts.
Opinion can be found here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/health-care-mandate-nullified/
About what I expected based on oral argument. Still, part of me wonders if this will even hit the Supreme Court at all. The pending cases will have to go through the Fourth and Eleventh circuits, and I can’t imagine that an anti-individual mandate ruling would survive en banc review by either of those courts. And without a circuit split, I’m not so sure the Supreme Court would be eager to take the case. We shall see, I suppose.
(To be clear, I find the individual mandate to be irreconcilable with the commerce clause/necessary and proper clause, but unfortunately I also expect the Fourth and Eleventh circuits will disagree with me.)
In my opinion, based upon reading many of the constitutional concerns, the ruling is correct.