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
rafflaw:
“and even Scalia has tipped his hand on this issue that it is consitutional”
When this does get before SCOTUS, and Scalia means what he said, I may just find a wee bit of respect for him.
On another note, I’m still waiting to see what the GOP wants to replace this bill with.
Bdaman:
Your point about waivers is critical. In order to justify Social Security everyone had to participate in the program in order for any “general welfare” aspect or equal protection to apply.
Waivers with Obamcare deny general welfare or equal protection. Some people are more special and able to shoo off the government while I am not.
Bdaman,
Why didn’t you list 28 of the corporations that got waivers like you did for the Unions?
Obama said that new laws would be online for five days before he would sign it but that was before Biden told him the was a Big Fucking Deal.
A week after Republicans announced plans to investigate waivers granted to organizations for healthcare reform provisions, President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than 500 groups.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is granting temporary waivers to organizations that would not be able to meet the reform law’s new requirement for annual coverage limits.
As of last week, HHS had granted waivers to 222 organizations covering 1.5 million individuals. Though the number of groups receiving waivers has now more than tripled, the number of individuals covered by the waivers increased just 600,000 to 2.1 million.
The law gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the flexibility to grant waivers to avoid disruption in the insurance market, but Republicans say the waivers are either gifts to Democratic allies or proof that the reform law isn’t working. However, a large number of businesses, in addition to unions, have received waivers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/140533-hhs-grants-new-reform-waivers-amid-heightened-scrutiny
Bob I let the lawyers do the lawyering but from my perspective the people running this country are hell bent on destroying it.
And don’t forget the waivers, over 700 to date. Here’s a list of at least 28.
The following is a list of UFCW Local health care plans receiving health care waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services:
1. Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers’ Health and Welfare Plan covers 6,885 enrollees.
2. UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund covers 107 enrollees.
3. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund covers 77 enrollees.
4. UFCW Local One Health Care Fund covers 4,335 enrollees.
5. Local 888 UFCW covers 4,004 enrollees.
6. UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund covers 3,028 enrollees.
7. Local 377 UFCW covers 1,142 enrollees.
8. UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund covers 3,800 enrollees.
9. UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust covers 68 enrollees
10. UFCW Local 227 covers 1,125 enrollees.
11. UFCW Maximus Local 455 covers 59 enrollees.
12. UFCW Local 1262 covers 5,390 enrollees.
13. United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health
and Welfare Plan covers 98 enrollees
14. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund covers 821 enrollees.
15. United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona covers 516 enrollees.
16. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan covers 7,389 enrollees.
17. Delmarva United Food and Commercial Workers covers 2,405 enrollees.
18. United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund covers 13,663 enrollees.
19. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire covers 148 enrollees.
20. The waiver for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund covers just four enrollees.
21. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a covers 8,228 enrollees.
22. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911 covers 582 enrollees.
23. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 covers 3,855 enrollees.
24. Wisconsin United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Health Plan covers 775 enrollees.
25. United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ) covers 4,100 enrollees.
26. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459 covers 1,400 enrollees.
27. United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund covers 6,780 enrollees.
28. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995 covers 2,779 enrollees.
Just imagine how this debate would change if people took the time to learn the basics of how the constitution works.
Bdaman,
There’s also no specifically enumerated power for congress to promulgate a general penal/criminal law. Thus the reason early drug laws were passed in the form of tax acts.
During the congressional debate over the health-care legislation, CNSNews.com repeatedly asked members of Congress to state the specific constitutional provision that authorized Congress to force individuals to buy health insurance. Multiple Democratic leaders–including Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.)–failed to directly answer the question.
By contrast, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sharply questioned the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate and told CNSNews.com: “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy’s told CNSNews.com that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to force people to buy health insurance.
“Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?” CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover asked Leahy.
”We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” countered Leahy.
“I’m asking,” said Cover.
“Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that,” said Leahy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-congressional-democrats-couldn
Da Link
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1182
“The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. This is one of a number of cases pending before courts around the country, including several that the government has won in the district courts that are now before the courts of appeals. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.”
“We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any – including seeking a stay – are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need.”
In re the issue of standing…
Didn’t SCOTUS toss out the rules of justiciability when it ignored all four them by deciding Bush v. Gore?
http://members.tripod.com/the_solipsist/id65.htm
Buddha,
I do hope you’re not arguing that the Fed was empowered to use the commerce clause in the way it did in this case.
J Vinson: “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.”
Damn straight!
The Fed was never empowered, even by the commerce/taffy clause, to compel citizens of the several states to make particular purchases; period.
Whoever drafted that law without a severability clause should at the very least, lose their job.
Well that’s good that you don’t believe in facts like what the Constitution actually says according to both people with legal experience and jurisprudence or how insurance operates to game the system of patchwork state-by-state regulation, Tootles.
It frees up storage space for other things in your brain. Other “more important” things. Like that whitey is experiencing genocide or that God hates homos. It’s such a small box, it’s good that you keep emptying out parts of it so you have room for your ridiculous beliefs.
Tony:
So you want a government monopoly? Please, don’t complain about monopolies at the same time you are advocating one.
There is not competitive car insurance? Or home owners insurance? Or life insurance?
I don’t believe you.
Government involvement in providing insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) is what strips the system of competitiveness. Doctors and hospitals know the government will pay out. There is no motivation to streamline, be efficient, or reduce costs.
Mike:
Every thing government does gets more and more expensive and provides worse and worse services. Eduction. The Post Office. Home Loans, College Tuition.
Your having one xray, a bottle of aspirin, a polio shot, and a dose of antibiotics (all of which about 99 percent of Americans can afford out of pocket) is more miraculous medical products and services than all the founding general of Americans ever had (because these things were not available).
Americans at the founding never had any of the options easily available to the poorest Americans today. And the poor have even more miraculous things they can afford. Best estimates of life expectancy in the colonial era is 45 years. Today? For the poor its about 75 years.
LOL! I don’t believe anything you cry babies say.
Obamacare screwed up the insurance industry. There are plenty of examples where the insurance company just stops writing different coverages. This thing stinks to high heaven and the bill needs to be ripped to shreds and start over. This time reading it before passing it instead of passing a hat and saying throw in what you want, then Pelosi telling us we have to pass it to know whats in it. Most recognize exactly whats in it now and it’s only good as a one ply sheet of toilet paper.
Politico writes:
Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
According to a survey of state insurance departments by Republican Senate committee staff and obtained by POLITICO, states that have seen carriers exit the market include those that have been ardent supporters of the health reform law, like California and Oregon. Twenty states now have no insurers offering child-only policies.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48299.html#ixzz1CIsNhkIe
All the while Egypt continues to burn