iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

First Posted: 12/13/10 12:06 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

Health Care Lawsuit

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insurance. The case is expected to end up at the Supreme Court.

In his order, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said he will allow the law to remain in effect while appeals are heard, meaning there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on other provisions that have already taken effect. The insurance coverage mandate is not scheduled to begin until 2014.

Even so, Republicans in Congress celebrated the ruling as validation of the arguments they had made for months while the law was pending. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., issued a statement urging the White House to agree to expedite a final ruling by appealing directly to the Supreme Court without first stopping at an appeals court.

Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down a key part of the law, which had been upheld by fellow federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and still others are pending, including one filed in Florida by 20 states.

White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.

The government had argued the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives it the power to require people to buy health insurance or face a penalty.

Hudson sided with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who argued the mandate overstepped the bounds of the Constitution. But he acknowledged his court will not be the last stop.

"This case, however, turns on atypical and uncharted applications of constitutional law interwoven with subtle political undercurrents," Hudson wrote. "The outcome of this case has significant public policy implications. And the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."

The Department of Justice stood by its argument that Congress was within its rights to enact the law.

"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.

The lawsuit was filed by Cuccinelli, a Republican, in defense of a new state law passed in reaction to the federal overhaul that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.

"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," Cuccinelli said in a statement after the ruling.

Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions - the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets - don't take effect until 2014.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insur...
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal judge declared the foundation of President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional Monday, ruling that the government cannot require Americans to purchase insur...
Filed by Whitney Snyder  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21,232
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (305 total)
03:39 PM on 12/20/2010
Please repeal the ins. reform?? take away,, no more preexisting conditions .. we now have no caps on what they the health ins. carrier, have to pay for our health care needs,, mine was 1million live time,now it is no limit no cap ,children will never have a preexisting condition move right on to mom an pops ins. plan,kids now can stay on mom an pops ins. plan from birth until they reach the age of 26.. Did you no when a women is born she is considered a preexisting condition in the eye of our health ins plans,,no why? Because she at some time in her life can have a baby?? I could go on on ,but you guys an gals get my point,,any women against or man against is completely INSANE,.,.the mandate or fine is 750dollar,, they have no way to enforce that fine,in other words you do not have to pay if you do not want to ,the gov. has no way to collect the 750.... these repugs in your States are wasteing money tax payers money to remove what I have just written about,, please excuse the spelling
02:22 PM on 12/20/2010
I'd written before that what is the difference between this an auto insurance mandates. People had replied well not having health insurance doesn't create the same liability to the innocent public. The fact that we have so many without health insurance is a huge liability to the public. States and municipalities are underwater and programs that save lives are being cut. We need to do something about our nation's largest expense regardless of constitutional interpretation.
11:23 AM on 12/20/2010
If the politicans would have written a resonable bill with the interests of the people at heart-more people would be for this bill. Most people agree health care reform is needed.
We do not need a bill to benefit big insurance.
Where is the benefit for my generation? I paid health insurance and ss for years. Now I have to wait in line behind people who want to breed and illegals. Not only that, keep paying for their healthcare and get none in return for myself.
Already states are whinning because their are not enough peditricians. Mississippi has the most children. Seems strange as it appears to be one of the poorer states.
Drs. tend to practice in areas where they can make the most money. No surprise as it costs a lot of money to get a medical degree and no one I know wants to work harder for less.
Why should ss payments to Drs be cut to help the young?
This bill along with other things the gov. does will turn generation against generation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kitten of D00M
08:15 PM on 12/19/2010
Being forced to buy insurance is no different than being forced to pay "protection" money to the mafia.
04:47 PM on 12/20/2010
they have no way to make you pay anything ,,that 750 dollar fine has no teeth,, the shame is these Ag Repugs, wasted tax payers money on these silly law suit?? a waste of money,,
11:03 AM on 12/17/2010
The more I read about this, the more I think Judge Hudson's ruling will stand when this comes before the Supreme Court. For the record, my politics are very left of left of center. But if the federal government can make you buy insurance, what else can they make you do? I've struggled long and hard with this... how does it not open the door to abuse of power? Can the government now make you join a gym because people who belong to gyms suffer fewer health problems? Can the government make you buy a house because homeowners are more economically productive than renters? These may be bad examples, but surely someone smarter than me can come up with some good ones.

I'm also wondering, again, about the so-called public option. Had our President not mailed it in (with his well-honed technique of preemptive surrender), the provision in question might not be necessary at all. If we could hold costs down more people -- not all people, but more people -- would buy in. Ideally, in a single-payer system, the entire problem is subsumed by the federal government, but the costs are no longer entwined with our beloved free market capitalism.

Meanwhile, it looks like the rich can keep more of their money and the poor can continue to suffer anonymously, in our two-tier oligarchy. Terrific. Nice work, Mr. President.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olerealist
retired trial attorney; former member of VA abd Wa
10:51 PM on 12/21/2010
Well for starters you can't run up a million dollar bill at a GYM and make someone else (like me and you) pay for it.
10:45 PM on 12/16/2010
About time the courts stop the unconstitutional mess rammed through Congress unread in the middle of the night.
04:48 PM on 12/20/2010
what they just rammed down our throat was this tax cut,,, the health ins. bill was on the floor an cspan for 1yr...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
08:07 PM on 12/16/2010
davcrock 3 minutes ago (7:47 PM)
130 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Assuming you will read, consider first, why do the States each have their own Constituti­­ons if they aren't sovereign within the limits of their authority, and then also the following provisions of the US Constituti­­on, all of which recognize the concept of dual sovereignt­­y inherent in the Constituti­­on and the federal system of government (the word federal is itself a real clue, look it up):
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---

Read the Supremacy Clause again!

Wait I will post it for you!

This Constituti­on, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constituti­on or laws of any state to the contrary notwithsta­nding.

Plain English,no­w show a sovereign state!”
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
08:03 PM on 12/16/2010
davcrock 3 minutes ago (7:47 PM)
130 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Assuming you will read, consider first, why do the States each have their own Constituti­ons if they aren't sovereign within the limits of their authority, and then also the following provisions of the US Constituti­on, all of which recognize the concept of dual sovereignt­y inherent in the Constituti­on and the federal system of government (the word federal is itself a real clue, look it up):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Supremacy Clause again!

Wait I will post it for you!

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Plain English,now show a sovereign state!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
07:58 PM on 12/16/2010
davcrock 30 minutes ago (7:20 PM)
130 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
1. When you learn to write a coherent sentence, give me a call.

2. I graduated from law school with top honors, served as a judicial law clerk for a State Supreme Court Justice and a federal district judge for over 7 years. I've studied Constituti­onal law and history profession­ally and as a hobby for several decades.

3. You have no idea what you are talking about. I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1-Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo studied law too,SO!

2-In the Internet you can be anything you want to be!

3-You need your money back ,because they stolen your money!

4-Probably I can't write a coherent sentence,b­ut I know that there
are not ONE sovereign state!

5-You are mocking Constituti­onal Scholars with your foolish ideas!

6-Point one sovereign state,plea­se!

7- Seriously you need a refund!
04:54 PM on 12/20/2010
what in the world does all this have to do with removing preexisting conditions an live time caps,an kids from birth can stay on moms health ins.?? these Rep. Att. Gen. on borrowed tax payers money fight the mandate?? that mandate has no teeth in short the Gov. has no way to collect the 750dollar fine... If you are a attorney you no this??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
05:07 PM on 12/20/2010
Kemo Sabay,my post is 4 days old,you must direct your question to "davcrock"
I'm Obamatomic,I don't know what is wrong with you,he is the one claiming he is an attorney-ask him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
williamg
Obamacare = law of the land...forever
06:30 PM on 12/16/2010
New study out of Massachusetts looks at the individual mandates effect on uninsured rates.


--National average uninsured rate: ......17.0%
--Massachusettes uninsured rate: .........1.9%

--National child uninsured rate: ..............10.0%
--Massachusetts uninsured rate: .............0.2%


The number of uninsured drop by 27% over past 3 years.
The number of uninsured children dropped by 83% over past 3 years.


http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dhcfp/r/pubs/10/mhis_report_12-2010.pdf
08:20 PM on 12/18/2010
Sure gov't threats will get people to buy insurance.

Perhaps we should mandate eating vegetables, exercising and getting enough sleep.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeanMMasters
centrist
02:31 PM on 12/16/2010
Medicare.
08:21 PM on 12/18/2010
Our country's largest unfunded liability
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
11:11 AM on 12/16/2010
ObamAtomic Yeah you can put a sentence together ,SO WHAT,you are babbling
that states are sovereign ,SHOW ONE or where in the Constitution
stated that,because the Supremacy Clause null all your
arguments.

When you find a sovereign state let US know!

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

All states must follow that Clause,that show that aren't sovereign states

I love this!

posted Dec 15, 2010 at 21:36:43 Reply Link

====================================================================

davcrock Your ignorance is unencumbered by any sense of logic.

posted Dec 16, 2010 at 04:48:42 Reply Link
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are the one claiming ignorant logic regarding the Constitution,,I guess you believe your pundit "badge" is synonymous of intelligence.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
10:38 AM on 12/16/2010
re·cuse (r-kyz)
tr.v. re·cused, re·cus·ing, re·cus·es
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
10:35 AM on 12/16/2010
the GOP fix is in ....

placed there by an activist GOP judge .... also a GOP strategy consultant ....
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
10:39 AM on 12/16/2010
re·cuse (r-kyz) .............................................................

tr.v. re·cused, re·cus·ing, re·cus·es
To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.
01:12 AM on 12/16/2010
Delay,Delay, Delay. Anything to put more money in special interest pockets.
I am weeping for America but not for the same reasons as the new weeper of the house and that turkey inbred from Kentucky. I feel very sorry for my grandchildren. I had hoped to leave them a better place. I don't think that is going to happen.
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
Edward R. Murrow