ILNews

Florida judge rules health-care law unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Florida has found that Congress has exceeded its authority in passing sweeping health-care reform in 2010 by including the individual mandate that people must purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. Indiana had joined with 25 other states, two individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business to challenge the law.

Indiana joined the lawsuit in May 2010 that sought to declare “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional. U.S. District Senior Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, denied in October 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the two surviving claims. Those claims challenged the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health care by 2014 and the altering and expansion of Medicaid.

Senior Judge Vinson issued a 78-page ruling Monday in State of Florida, by and through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 3:10-CV-91, devoting most of the opinion to the individual mandate issue. He granted the government’s motion for summary judgment on the Medicaid claim, ruling there’s no support for the state plaintiffs’ coercion argument in existing case law. The states argued they will face serious financial and practical problems because of alterations to the Medicaid program.

But because the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the individual mandate issue, he struck down the entire law, ruling that the individual mandate can’t be severed from the Act.

“I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit,” he wrote.

Senior Judge Vinson reiterated in his opinion that his case isn’t about whether the law is wise or unwise legislation, but is about the constitutional role of the federal government.

“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,’” he wrote. “In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement late Monday in response to the ruling, saying he expects the federal government to appeal. In December, a federal District Court in Virginia had ruled in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which brought a challenge to the health-care law. That court found portions of the law to be unconstitutional, including that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause.

“It was unprecedented for the federal government to claim it can require individuals to purchase a commercial health insurance product or pay a penalty. The sovereign states had an obligation to bring this respectful legal challenge to test whether this claim was constitutional. It is essential that the question be asked of and answered by the United States Supreme Court. Today’s ruling in Florida finding that a portion of the law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause is historic, and an important check on the scope of the federal government’s power,” Zoeller said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT