A federal court ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration’s signature legislative accomplishment.
In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
The individual mandate “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,” wrote Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.
While the ruling creates a headache for the law’s supporters, it doesn’t mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.
Judge Hudson didn’t grant the plaintiffs’ request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in 2014. The judge also said his ruling only applies to the individual mandate and the provisions of the law that are directly dependent on it.
The Supreme Court is expected ultimately to settle the issue after the Virginia case and similar challenges wind their way through the courts.
Administration officials say the ruling amounts to an attack on one of the law’s most popular provisions, the ban on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions. That piece of the law can’t work unless coupled with a requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance, they say.
“We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe—as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found—that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “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.”
The administration has downplayed the outcome of the challenge by Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, saying it received outsize attention because of his visibility.
(Read More: WSJ)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
24 Responses
Let’s see how long that judge lasts
Let’s hope that this ruling will effect the one pending in Florida. If the Obama administration loses that one, we’ll hear Obama scold the Supreme Court at the State of the Union once again.
A judge appointed to the bench remains there for life. That is why if Obama appoints liberal judges as he recently did, it messes over the country more than laws enacted that can be vetoed by the next congress, and the like. We are a federal republic that acts under the guise of a democratic country.
When are they going to rule that Obama’s presidency is unconstitutional?
Lets see how president Obama will edenet himself here! he is making a fool out of our country
#1,
As an Article III judge, he serves for life as long as he doesn’t do anything to defame his office.
I’m sure he was honest in his opinion, but if it is ultimately allowed to stand, it won’t just cause the cost of health insurance to skyrocket, it will go into orbit. Why should anyone buy health insurance in advance of an illness when it is guaranteed to be available? The likely result will be Medicare-for-all.
charlie, how about making some sense once in a while. Quit spewing your left wing garbage and expect people to believe you. This isn’t the caller site you play with with followers like Chris Mathews thrill up the leg who drink the kool aid like the jim jones people.
when has Obama ever cared about the constitution
And 2 other court rulings were ruled that it is constitutional, its to early to jump for joy.
True @ Charlie, but this will eventually lead to a total repeal of the law. The law didn’t do anything to essentially curb the costs and with this ruling the Democrats might decide to sit down at the negotiation table to decide on a bi-partisan plan that will lower insurance prices. They’ll be willing to include provisions such as across the border plans and tort reform. Additionally, the Republicans will be drafting the budget and perhaps defund some measures of the law; leading the already flawed bill to become nearly defunct.
I think Charlie’s wrong here, and if the mandate’s struck down, the whole bill will go too, but I also love that Mark thinks Charlie should make sense because this isn’t a site where followers thrill up the leg who drink the kool aid. Truer words were never spoken (by Mark at least).
to #1 and #6–
The judge should have reclused himself. HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED because he is nogeah bedaver.
Maybe $100,000 nogeah bedaver!
Look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html
Dave,
Tort reform is a good idea, but it has done nothing to curb costs or to make more care available in places where it has been enacted. From Texas, we now have Americans going to Mexico for medical care because the health care system is so bad there — despire George W. Bush’s well publicized tort reforms. There is also the constitutional problem that the federal government can’t retrict what state courts do unless there is a federal constitutional issue.
Mosheemes2,
The whole bill won’t go because there are already people who are benefitting from the mandated coverages. No congressman is going to want to face a parent whose sick child is now going to die because he voted to end the child’s health insurance!
One other thing people are forgetting — the insurance industry desparately wants the mandated coverage! Given their massive campaign contributions, there is no way Congress will repeal the mandate.
A natural follow-up to this would be to declare Medicare and Social Security unconstitutional. Such a decision would rapidly be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment and the Republican Party would cease to exist at the next election.
So Charlie do you therefore not have health insurance for yourself since you can always get medicaid (chas veshalom) if needed?
Charlie, Medicare is not mandated. The government does not for is on you.
Charlie listen here, I need to put a stop to your erroneous comments. Far be it from me to assess your ability (or inability) to rationalize intellectually among my fellow devoted readers, but your coming off as very abrasive. Take care to think before you comment because once you click “submit” its set in stone. Tizku Lashanim Rabot
Could this judge be thinking of running for higher office in the future? Great way to gain tons of free publicity. Smart move!
“2 other court rulings were ruled that it is constitutional”
Also 14 suits that were dismissed.
“The law didn’t do anything to essentially curb the costs”
True. The Republicans actually opposed many of the cost saving ideas, calling them “death panels”. Some Republicans even oppose cost effectiveness research.
“and with this ruling the Democrats might decide to sit down at the negotiation table to decide on a bi-partisan plan that will lower insurance prices.”
They did negotiate — or at least try to do so with Senate Republicans. But it became clear that all the Republicans but one were just interested in delay and obstruction. And the one who wasn’t, Bob Bennett of Utah, got primaried. Now no Republican would dare.
“They’ll be willing to include provisions such as across the border plans and tort reform.”
Across the border plans are legal today, just as in auto insurance. There are thousands of health insurers in the US and most operate in most states. But the theory that more competition leads to lower cost has been empirically proven to be false: Hawaii has only two health insurers sharing 99% of the market, yet it is a very low cost state.
It is probably unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate tort reform as it would interfere with state courts. And Texas’ experience is that it does not result in more access or better care.
“Medicare is not mandated.”
Wrong. You pay a Medicare tax.
“but your coming off as very abrasive”
LOL!
“Could this judge be thinking of running for higher office in the future?”
Unlikely. He has a lifetime job as a federal judge. He served two terms as the elected Commonwealth’s Attorney in Arlington County, VA in the 1980s (I voted for him the first time) and he seemed not to like campaigning.
“do you therefore not have health insurance for yourself since you can always get medicaid”
You can’t get Medicaid unless you are very poor.
Should getting sick automatically mean financial ruin?
Charlie, if not having ObamaCare would cause the health costs to go sky high, what do you call HAVING ObamaCare?? I took an informal survey amongst a number of friends as well as agents and EVERYONE said their policy increased SIGNIFICANTLY in the last renewal which was after Obama signed this disaster. My insurance has gone up 75% since this fraud called ObamaCare was signed!
Go back to the caller where people actually drink your socialist flavored koolaid.
” EVERYONE said their policy increased SIGNIFICANTLY in the last renewal ”
There are at least three reasons:
(1) General increase in health care costs. Early versions of the Affordable Care Act included provisions for cost control, but Republicans called them “death panels”, so they were removed.
(2) The mandates on the insurers to cover pre-existing conditions have begun while the mandates to have insurance have not started. If the Hudson opinion is upheld this will get worse as I indicated above. Americans want something for nothing. Proof of this are recent polls that show that the mandate to have insurance is very unpopular while the mandates on insurers to cover pre-existing conditions are extremely popular.
(3) What is not well understood is that premiums are NOT the only source of income for insurers. Investments are equally important. And many of the kinds of investments that insurers make have totally tanked since 2008, especially real estate. Blame the Bush economic crash for this one, not President Obama.
“socialist flavored koolaid”
What socialism? The government optional plan was REMOVED from the bill before it was enacted. Do you favor repeal of Medicare?