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
Whether or not it was a mistake or intentional the lack of a severability clause, even though it was not required, left the door open for a judge hostile to the law to use that to throw out the entire law. He didn’t HAVE to do that but I think he was within legal precedent to do so.
I do think the mandate is unconstitutional. I also think it’s bad politics to boot. There are many other ways to encourage enrollment. However we should have gone single payer or failing that, we should have included a public option. Constitutional issues disappear.
http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2011/02/health-care-debate-again.html
rafflaw,
Good lord, yes!
Buddha,
that is a great quote. I have never seen it before.
“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” – Harlan Ellison
Blouise,
I think I see what you saw, but I was trying to ignore it. I did not want a certain someone to claim I was playing a certain “card”. Is that what you saw?
“But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.” (Tootie)
====================================================
Oh boy … does anybody else see in that statement what I see?
Then move on to the main paragraph from that post:
“When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock. So even if they did have more kids/pregnancies, unexpected or not, those kids had intact families once they arrive. And intact families (especially among the lower classes) are part of the key to prosperity in America. Blacks had a continual rise in economic standing up (and through) to the Great Society period. It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family. That of course has much to do with unwanted pregnancies.” (Tootie – February 1, 2011 at 10:58 pm)
Holy Toledo!
In the words of Will Rogers: “When ignorance gets started it knows no bounds.”
Lotta:
LOL
Woost:
You suggested lack of education. Absolutely.
But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.
Look, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having big families. I don’t care if even leftists have big families. It is Mike who makes a big deal about it in terms of Christians (especially in the south).
Broken families?
When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock. So even if they did have more kids/pregnancies, unexpected or not, those kids had intact families once they arrive. And intact families (especially among the lower classes) are part of the key to prosperity in America. Blacks had a continual rise in economic standing up (and through) to the Great Society period. It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family. That of course has much to do with unwanted pregnancies.
But it was the left that promoted the sexual revolution at the same time we got rid of tough divorce laws for everyone. This played a key role as well.
Fascinating NPR audio interview:
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/12/african-american-families
Nice article by Thom Sowell of Stanford:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2000/08/10/blacks_and_bootstraps/page/full/
Quit being so mean to tootie and Chan too. I just want to cry when you hurt their feelings.
2t: “Those are the butts that just float around the universe without location, or context, or covering. It was THOSE butts! They must be like those little Cupids that float around the heavens with bows and arrows… And now that you brought up the issue of sexuality, if you continue to use these terms in regard to me then I will consider your aggressive verbal attack, especially the use of the “butt-hurt” term, a form of sexual harassment.”
—-
Lol, Get’n all leagal-y ain’t gonna’ cut it. This isn’t a job-site 2T, if you don’t like the language you can complain to the Professor or leave.
Don’t open this if you are offended by “floating butts” (IMO, a thoroughly enchanting concept):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61628540@N00/3734320870
Bob,
Copy that.
AY,
Just standing up for the right of every red blooded male who chases panties to do so without being confused with Tootie. 😉
Stam:
Oh, one more thing. You said:
“I wouldn’t know because I’m not a degenerate like you are. You are the one injecting sexuality into this, not me. That speaks to your own repressive view of sexuality. Again, personal problem.”
And you said ” I never said anything about things in peoples’ underwear, pervert.”
So now you have called me a pervert and a degenerate. Nice. Real nice. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you could be.
You several times bring into the conversation the obscene comments using intimate body part terms to insult me and then accuse me of injecting sexuality into the discussion and call ME a pervert?
You have a screw loose.
I never suggested you said something sexual. What you did bring into the discussion was obscene terms meant to humiliate me. And now it seems you wish to pretend butt and asses might not be in underwear, and it would be only some degenerate who might think they would be, and it had to be only because I was a pervert that I noticed they were.
Oh, you must have been referring to those Platonic butts and asses that have nothing to do with sexually charged undies! I should have guessed! What was I thinking? Those are the butts that just float around the universe without location, or context, or covering. It was THOSE butts! They must be like those little Cupids that float around the heavens with bows and arrows.
No,it was you, Stam, who brought sexuality into it by telling me I brought it in (when I did not).
And now that you brought up the issue of sexuality, if you continue to use these terms in regard to me then I will consider your aggressive verbal attack, especially the use of the “butt-hurt” term, a form of sexual harassment.
This discussion is not furthered by your using body parts as obscenities to insult me.
Do what Buddha?
Tootie:”Blacks have more unintended pregnancies than whites and all other groups. What are you going to blame that on if not Christianity? Being black?”
mmmmmm, lack of education?
Lack of access to decent healthcare?
Higher rates of single parent households?
Lower income across the board?
Higher rates of violence and oppression?
…liken that pantie thang??????? 😉
During his testimony at a Jan. 26 House Ways & Means Committee hearing on the new healthcare law, Austan Goolsbee squirmed and obfuscated while repeatedly denying an inconvenient truth about Obamacare: the law contains numerous tax hikes on those making less than $250,000 per year — a violation of President Obama’s central campaign promise not to sign into law “any form of tax increase” on these families.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/top-obama-advisor-lies-health-care-a5809##ixzz1ClD2OqqK
Buddha,
I do see the corporate protectionism within the scheme, but the constitutional issue is what pisses me off more.
Why is it that the liberals are just as willing to use the constitution as a urinal puck as the right wingers to get what they want?
Health care reform is a necessity and could be done legally by rehabilitating medicare via reduction of waste and fraud and moving towards the single payer option via the tax rolls.
Forcing people to buy something via the commerce clause? That’s just pure horse shit.
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Buckeye:
Do you have an example of what “civil rights laws” (connected to the Commerce Clause) would be rolled back if SCOTUS upholds yesterday’s decision?
Stam:
You are very interested in me, which is why you following me around like a lost puppy.
SL,
Hey! What’s wrong with obsessing over panties! You’re going to deprive AY of one of his favorite hobbies. I mean calling out a zealot is one thing, but calling out a traditional and very common, cross-cultural and cross-class male hobby is something else altogether. 😉