United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson has struck down the entirety of the National Health Care law (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as unconstitutional. What is most interesting is his decision that the entire act had to be struck down because of the individual mandate provision’s unconstitutionality. Vinson grants declaratory relief but declines to grant injunctive relief.
Joined by governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the Florida challenge was broader than the recent Virginia challenge — that led to the striking down of the individual mandate provision. I have previously written about my own concerns over the constitutionality of that provision.
The decision of Judge Vinson will only increase the already high likelihood that the Supreme Court will review the controversy. The two major decisions in Virginia and Florida will be reviewed by two different courts of appeal. Two other rulings (supporting the law) are also moving toward the Supreme Court.
The rule also represents a rejection of the Administration’s effort to avoid review by challenging the standing of the state attorneys general. Ironically, I reviewed the Bond v. U.S. (09-1227) case in my Supreme Court class today. That case involves a woman who challenged her conviction on federalism grounds. The Third Circuit ruled that only states and state officials could challenge federal laws on federalism grounds. The Obama Administration (correctly in my view) switched sides before the Court and ended up arguing for the Bond that she did have standing. This could prove an important term on standing doctrine. The conservatives justices have been generally hostile to standing and have gradually carved out individuals and groups who can seek review of some laws.
Judge Vinson ruled that he could not treat the individual mandate provision as severable and thus (after agreeing with Judge Hudson in Virginia that the provision is unconstitutional) he struck down the entire act. He stated: Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.”
The court notes that Congress elected not to include a severability clause despite the fact that one was in an earlier version of the law — setting itself up for such a total rejection of the law.
The decision is a strong expression of federalism, starting with Madison’s famous statement from the Federalist Papers 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place oblige it to control itself.
The problem is the lack of a limiting principle in the arguments in favor of the law. Vinson notes:
The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course
of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a
morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service
and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on
interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.
He notes the political pressure in the case: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.”
In rejecting an injunction, the court indicates that declaratory and injunctive relief should be essentially fungible:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I doubt the Administration will view it that way. They have two decision upholding the law and two rejecting the law on the district level. They are not likely to view themselves constructively enjoined.
Here is the entire decision by Judge Vinson: Vinson
Jonathan Turley
@Tootie: That’s the problem, they don’t compete at all, they collude to create a monopoly that overcharges and then screws any policy holder requiring expensive care. They routinely deny coverage they are contractually obligated to provide, and only provide it when sued hard — By which time the policy holder is often dead, which works to their advantage because death terminates the expense of the care.
If they are allowed to cross state lines, it is not the insurance companies that will compete: It is the states; the state with the most lax and ill-enforced corporate regulation and lowest fees and franchise taxes (what corporations pay to states) is where they will be located, all the better to screw you with.
squirrel:
The necessary and proper clause as it refers to the power to declare war allows for the Air force. The Air Force started in the Army (something allow in Article One, Section Eight).
The Marines Corp? Does “Marine” give you a clue? Hint, hint “marina”, “water”???? Like in Navy? LOL And does the shores of Tripoli ring a bell? Does the Continental Navy-Marine Corps sound familiar?
I don’t believe the CIA and FBI should be executive branch departments. Where is the power listed? Only congress would have this authority.
BATF? Not even congress has the authority to create a BATF.
Tootie,
Yes, let’s just take our hands off the wheel and the magical market will steer us to low rates for all!
Your faith in unaccountable private entities is… impressive?
Tootie,
You do know that is a false example, don’t you? Don’t you realize that insurance companies have many subsidiaries or related companies that are set up to do business in one or several states to get around any state border issues?
Blake:
If the government would stop regulating insurance companies across state lines companies could compete better.
And the winner is…..
Health insurance companies. Bill more, pay less to the doctors.
A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983…..
No wonder Obama has been evoking Ronald Regan so much and the media trying to paint him as Reaganesque as of late. Tried to send the judge a signal. All the while Egypt burns.
Tootie,
So we should dismantle the Air Force, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the BATFE, and the Marine Corps too? None of these entities are enumerated.
Tootie,
I know you don’t care, but that doesn’t make it any less important for the rest of the world that cares about the motives.
eniobob,
I am not sure the Republicans care about the chaos, it will just allow their bosses, the insurance industry to charge even more money for less service. I think the chaos could be useful because people who have prexisting conditions comprise almost half of the US population and they should be rightfully upset if the health care is thrown out by the Supremes.
enio:
Oh yes, we should violate the Constitution because Democrats previously trampled it now we might have undo it. They could have stopped it but insisted on this madness.
rafflaw:
I don’t care why people are suing the feds.
James:
It can only use its spending power on things it has authority to use it for.
It doesn’t have authority to force the states to have health care.
Interesting and true comment from a Huffpo commentator:
“Dave Parks (3:37 PM)
Better be careful what you wish for, GOP. If by some miracle you have this law declared unconstitutional, there will be complete chaos within the American health system. Then, you’d better think fast about what YOU are going to do about the problems facing health care. And doing nothing will not be an option that you can politically afford”
Tootie,
This is only one Federal District Court and as Prof. Turley has stated, this will end up in front of the Supremes and even Scalia has tipped his hand on this issue that it is consitutional. The only reason these cases are being brought is for political gain by the state AG’s and the Republican party and to stir their base up.
Vince Tracey appears to have been a prophet :
“Vince Treacy
1, March 31, 2010 at 7:54 am
JT says “these are matters that should not be decided by mere fiat of Congress but rather by the courts.”
I disagree. These matters should be resolved by the democratically elected representatives of the people, not by unelected judges imposing their own particular economic views by judicial fiat.
If the people disagree, they will elect new representatives who will vote to reform, amend or repeal the law. If the people agree, the law will stand.
Some folks favor the rule of unelected judges in matters of economic policy. In the past, those judges invalidated child labor laws.”
The glee must be overflowing especially in the House.
Tootie,
That’s simply untrue. The federal government could constitutionally use its spending power to persuade the states to adopt healthcare reform, even if this is struck down.
James:
You have to rewrite the Constitution to have your visitation.
If this gets struck down, it seems like it will take at least 2 years, if not 4 or 6, before we could even hope to have healthcare revisited.
If the feds can do this (force us to have health care) it can force us to do just about anything.
No one in their right mind believes this arbitrary (and totalitarian) power is limited government. And that is why anyone who voted for the act was not in their right mind (and probably never is).
This is not an enumerated power. Congress does not have this power. And the president goes down in history as a Constitutional scholar who doesn’t know what the Constitution means,and a national embarrassment.