UPDATED
According to multiple reports, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled that part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is unconstitutional.
The ruling by District Judge Henry Hudson says the law “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power” by requiring individuals to purchase health care coverage under the “individual mandate.” It is the first federal ruling against the law.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” Hudson wrote. “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I .”
Crucially, however, Hudson refused to issue an injunction preventing the implementation of the law, and ruled that the unconstitutional parts of it could be severed from the whole.
Suit was brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli.
“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” said Cuccinelli in a statement.
Cuccinelli has made the extraordinary request that the case bypass the regular appellate order and proceed directly to the highest court, arguing that the Obama administration, too, would benefit from a speedy resolution.
You can read the 42-page ruling here.
So, there are something like 44 states to go...if this ends in a tie, do we go to Sudden Death Panel overtime?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, no. An unconstitutional ruling means this whole thing dies, unless, (and I forget the term for it) the bill was structured so that it could become law in parts, rather than the whole.
This ruling goes straight to the Supremes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether or not it was structured to allow provisions to be severed without invalidating the whole, this has the same practical effect. If you can't force people to participate, you can't have a universal system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it's been well established that there was no severability built into this bill.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeverability isn't as open and shut as it sounds, there is precedence for allowing severability even if no severability clause is included in the law. I'm not even sure which would be better for opponents to the law, through out the whole thing or cut it's heart out and force a complete revamp.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether the bill had a severability clause is almost irrelevant. With out the mandate, the house of cards falls - the economics supporting the bill, the pre-existing conditions mandates, etc. all become unworkable without the forced participation to pay for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis case will go all the way up to SCOTUS, eventually, but this is a very satisfying result. A first-year law school student could have told Obama and the Dems that abstention from economic activity -- essentially, willful refusal to participate in economic activity -- cannot be categorized as economic activity that, in the aggregate, affects interstate commerce. The seminal case of individual wheat growers (the name escapes me) is totally inapposite, because those growers chose to engage in the economic activity. A person who refuses to buy health insurance is not exhibiting the same behavior. Throw in the fact that health insurance is sold in fifty separate state markets, not across state lines, and the Dems' argument that the mandate passed constitutional muster under Congress's Commerce Clause power was absurd from the outset.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeverability is the term, and this bill is remarkable in that it does NOT contain one. If you strike the individual mandate, major parts of the rest of the legislation may well go down with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, very good, didn't realize it was the first Federal Court ruling. Well, we know at least four S.C. Justices will rule this is no different than Kelo..."public purpose". So let's all pray for the good health and long life of the remaining justices...and that Justice Kennedy wakes up in a foul mood the morning the case is argued before the court.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid this line get added to the original post?
"Crucially, however, Hudson refused to issue an injunction preventing the implementation of the law, and ruled that the unconstitutional parts of it could be severed from the whole."
If so, please explicitly note these as updates so our comments don't look dumb later!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDarn, no injunction! That would have really been the death blow because it would have put a complete halt on ANY regulatory activity undertaken by the administration. It would have also forced the Administration to more aggressively pursue a Supreme Court challenge in the hopes that they would win.
I agree with most of the posts that an explicit severability clause is not necessary as the Supreme Court has already made past rulings on severability thus making it the "jurisdiction" of the courts to decide. Sev clause or no, simple economics will doom this bill if the finding of the lower court (Judge Hudson's ruling) is upheld.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is VERY good news, and I don't mean just about the first step in dismantling ObamaCare. With this ruling, we have the first step to pushing back on Congress's ever expanding use of the Commerce Clause to intrude into American public life. Kudos to the VA SoS, and the judge for this enlightened ruling. On to SCOTUS!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis may be obvious, but the administration almost certainly considered this possibility when it pushed for passage of the bill and during its argument of the various court cases. The individual mandate may exceed constitutional authority, but a tax most likely does not.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional and there is no injunction against the law as a whole, then by the time SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the law will presumably be in effect and the only practical way to remedy the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate (if that is the way SCOTUS rules) will be to have the government as the insuring entity and have that government entity collect premiums under the government's constitutional taxing authority.
This position relies on public support of ObamaCare by the time SCOTUS rules and the notion that people will not want to lose whatever ObamaCare benefits/entitlements have been put in place and will therefore be in favor of this government insurance entity. It would be the return of the public option, only with more power and more market effect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would love to see Obamacare die a quick, painless death, hopefully at the hands of those who created it - Congress. But, I'm afraid that the legal challenges to the Act, won't do much more than prevent the government from raising revenue to offset the new entitlement costs. Without the judiciary striking the entire Act because of the severability issue, this really doesn't mean much beyond complicating how Obamacare is paid for. Essentially, all this ruling does is create another unfunded mandate, which is hardly what our exponentially increasing deficit needs.
And, without a veto-proof majority in the Senate, which we clearly don't have, I don't see any possible way that Obamacare is undone (even partially), at least while Obama is in office. Then, once coverage is actually extended to significant numbers of people (I believe in 2013) how does the (presumably) Republican controlled government unwind that?
Yes, I know. We're going to "de-fund" it. Just like the GOP has "de-funded" the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the EPA, etc, etc, etc. The fact is, the GOP hasn't been successful in de-funding much of anything, and I don't think Obamacare will be the exception, unfortunately.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the individual mandate is unconstituional but the rest of the bill can stand, everyone is going to long for the days of 20% health care premium increases!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost of you are obviously not people in need of health care. Millions of people can not afford access to health care in this country at any price. What in the world is the matter with all of you? Even the upper middle class is unable to purchase health insurance due to preexisting conditions or inability to afford it--Who can afford to pay several thousand dollars a month in premiums? No one can. If the health care system isn't working for everyone, then it isn't working. I for one am a ten year survivor of breast cancer & can not purchase insurance in the private market at any price. I am just as un-insurable in the private market today as the moment I received my diagnosis ten years ago. Why shouldn't I be permitted to purchase affordable insurance? The purpose of insurance in the first place, was to spread the cost of a loss among a greater number of people---SO THAT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD HEALTH CARE--or in the case of property damage--replacement or repair of a home or car. To try to state that mandating the purchase of a "private" product doesn't really fly---laws, banks or deeding companies require purchase of home owner insurance & auto insurance--but then you try to disqualify that by saying that people aren't required to own homes or cars--which is absurd if you reason it the other way around; that people can't own homes or cars unless they purchase insurance through the private insurance market. Mandating that individuals secure a way to pay for their health care, helps everyone in this country. Most people can't afford to rebuild a home or replace a vehicle when they've suffered the loss of either, so the same principle applies with health care. Most people cannot afford to purchase health care when they have suffered a major loss of health. The only reason any of you wouldn't like mandating purchase of health insurance, is because your interests are big business & profit--and not the American people. Those Americans that either can't afford health insurance in the private market or can't buy it at any price due to health history, should be provided somewhere they can go to receive affordable health care. It all boils down to human greed and selfishness not to support what you call "O'Bama care".....You are all so transparent. Just wait until you or your loved ones aren't able to access health care at any price.....You will all be singing a much different tune. What is right is right, regardless of how you try to slice it. Turning millions of Americans away from access to affordable health care is cruel, inhumane, and down right wrong. There is no way around that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWill Elena Kagan recuse?
Discuss.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKellyRN - on matters of the Constitution your post makes ZERO difference. I, and many others, prefer the Constitution to Big Brother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis ruling is not good news!! I may be the exception here. I support the ACA. I am glad Obama's final law turned out leaving our essential system intact and encouraging the solvency of our individual market run by competitive private health insurers. No single payer monopoly takeover, no public option. Many extreme left pundits hate the new health care law too. (As far as I'm concerned, that's another reason to like it)
Congress does have the obligation to pass laws for the public welfare. Health care is part of that. We already have a mandate in the sense that our health care costs are rising partly because of the inadequately covered having their costs covered by us through higher premiums and taxes. Since when did getting a free ride off someone else's dime become the conservative position? (ACA is not flawless and I support cleaning it up).
Switzerland has a mandate and its health care is excellent and its coverage is universal. They soundly defeated a single payer takeover attempt. Germany, Austria, Netherlands and others have successfully used mandates to preserve market competition in their health care without leaving citizens in difficult coverage situations, safety net reliance, etc.
NRO has been fair in exploring varied conservative views on almost every subject but this. There is a conservative case for the mandate. NRO should be fair and discuss it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrome the decision: “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,”
It seems to me that the "Public Option" with the federal government directly controlling the costs instead of indirectly through insurance companies WOULD be OK in the eyes of the judge. If so, I'm sure thats the fix needed in the eyes of Obama.
Since this would get negotiated between republicans & democrats, this may not be the death blow we are all hoping for. Or am I seeing this through my Derb eyes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse