In Taking "Obamacare" to Court, we told you about the numerous federal lawsuits that cropped up immediately after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (popularly referred to as “Obamacare” or “health care reform”) was enacted on March 23, 2010. Among other issues, the health care reform law sparked heavy controversy as to whether a provision mandating that all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 falls within constitutional bounds. The big question facing judges is whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority* by establishing the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, a.k.a. Section 1501 of the Act. Judges have voiced divergent opinions on the issue, but they all seem to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the constitutionality of Obamacare. Such decision could significantly affect the public at large, not only in terms of health care changes, but also as far as the scope of federal power is concerned.

*Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted to mean (among other things) that such regulatory authority extends to activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

As the issues move forward, we'll do our best to keep you updated. As of July 15, 2011, here's the judicial scoop:

Unconstitutional:

• Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius: On Monday December 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that Section 1501 is unconstitutional. Finding that Congress lacks the authority* to “compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction,” Hudson suggested that Section 1501 would set a powerful precedent. "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Hudson.

Judge Hudson severed Section 1501 from the Act and explained that the court lacked the information necessary to validate or invalidate other sections of the health care reform law. Hudson noted the haste in which Obamacare was enacted and stated that it "embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care - over 400 in all…"

Alluding to the “atypical and unchartered applications of constitutional law interwoven with subtle political undercurrents” upon which this case turns, Hudson stated that the outcome will undoubtedly be decided by a higher court, and will carry significant public policy implications. So far, this case has made it to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; the three-judge-panel heard oral arguments on May 10, 2011. As of July 15, 2011, a judicial opinion still pends.

• State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services: On Monday January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its constitutional authority* when enacting it. Unlike Judge Hudson, but like Judge Steeh, Judge Vinson found that the offending insurance mandate was “indisputably necessary to the purpose of the Act,” and therefore not severable. Noting the difficulty in striking down the Obamacare Act at a time when “there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country,” Judge Vinson explained, in so many words, that his decision was about checks and balances, rather than about the merits of the law itself. Vinson wrote:

"This case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our Federalist system, and it raises very important issues about the Constitutional role of the federal government."

Acknowledging the difficulty in solving our nation's health care problems through new legislation, Judge Vinson reminded Congress that it “must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution.”

Headed by Florida Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi, the plaintiffs (now respondents) in this case are the Attorney Generals and/or Governors of 26 states (originally 20 states, with six more joined by January 2011): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The Obama Administration appealed Vinson's decision, and on June 8, 2011, a panel of three judges at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. That day, in a news release, AG Pam Bondi expressed her desire for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case as soon as possible. As of July 15, 2011, we're still awaiting the judges’ decision.

Constitutional:

• Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Hussein Obama: In October 2010, Michigan District Court Judge George Steeh held that Section 1501 passes constitutional muster on the grounds that (1) Congress can regulate decisions about payment of health care costs which have substantial effects on the interstate health care market, and (2) the provision is essential for Act’s overall regulation of interstate market for health care insurance. The plaintiff, a public interest law firm, appealed Steeh’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Steeh’s ruling on June 29, 2011. Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney who argued the case asserted:

“This decision must be reversed by the Supreme Court. By granting Congress such broad powers under the Commerce Clause, the appellate court has created a new kind of power not previously known to the jurisprudence, which effectively grants the federal government state police power, thereby rendering any notion of the constitutionally mandated federalism dead letter law. This is a dangerous precedent.”

The Law Center has declared its intent to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case.

•  Margaret Peggy Lee Mead v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.:  On February 22, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Gladys Kessler granted the Dept. of Health and Human Services' Motion to Dismiss on a finding that Congress acted within constitutional bounds when enacting Section 1501.Plaintiffs are appealing this case; oral arguments are scheduled for hearing by the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on September 23, 2011.
  

Additional References and Resources:

Sack, Kevin. "Federal Judge Rules that Health Law Violates Constitution." NYTimes.com, Jan. 31, 2011. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01ruling.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=&st=cse

Sack, Kevin. "Judge Voids Key Element of Obama Health Care Law." NYTimes.com, Dec. 13, 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

Thomas More Law Center. "Sixth Circuit Obamacare Decision on the Way to the Supreme Court." Thomasmore.org, June 30, 2011. Available at http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=918&_nc=4d652b7541709c2c539ad24b9e82e0e3

Wolters Kluer. "Appellate court validation of health reform strikes down "inactivity" argument." Health.cch.com, July 5, 2011. Available at http://health.cch.com/netnews/Health-Reform/current.html

© 2011 Heart MD Institute, PA