A federal judge on Monday ruled that the main tenet
of the recent health care overhaul is unconstitutional, throwing the legislation's
future into question and setting the stage for a drawn-out fight that will
likely end up in the Supreme Court.
In a 42-page opinion, Judge Henry E. Hudson found that "Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act -- specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision -- exceeds the constitutional boundaries of Congressional power."
That provision, perhaps the bill's most controversial, is the so-called "mandate," which requires citizens to carry health insurance and charges an annual penalty for failure to do so. Despite the already-robust debate that has surrounded health care reform, section 1501 isn't slated to take effect until 2014.
The court accepted Virginia's argument that the mandate exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That clause, found in Article I of the Constitution, grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." Over years of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to include virtually any activity that has some economic effect, even if it occurs within a single state.
But Judge Hudson ruled that the government has finally stretched the clause to its limit, by trying to punish the seeming inactivity of failing to purchase health insurance.
"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," Judge Hudson wrote in his opinion.
Government's tax argument fails as well
The government also argued that the penalty for
failing to obtain insurance is a kind of tax, and thus constitutional under the
General Welfare Clause, which allows Congress to "lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
defense and general Welfare of the United States."
Judge Hudson rejected this argument as well, writing that the government's "use of the term 'tax' appears to be a tactic to achieve enlarged regulatory license.
"A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme," Judge Hudson wrote. "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
Long history of the Commerce Clause
The ruling is undoubtedly a blow to President Obama, who counts health-care reform as his most significant achievement since his inauguration. But this isn't the first time that expansive legislation and the Commerce Clause have squared off in the courts.
In 1936, the Supreme Court invalidated President Franklin Roosevelt's regulation of the mining industry, part of the comprehensive New Deal legislation enacted during the Great Depression. That ruling, which held that mining isn't "commerce" for constitutional purposes, helped spur Roosevelt's ill-fated attempt to "pack the court" by adding as many as six new justices.
And in 1964, following the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, the court handed down Heart of Atlanta v. United States, in which it unanimously held that Congress did not overstep its bounds in forcing private business owners to serve customers regardless of their race.
Decision draws cheers from right
Judge Hudson's ruling drew an immediate response from both sides of the aisle, and showed that the intensity surrounding reform isn't likely to let up any time soon.
Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's attorney general and the man who brought the suit, issued a victorious statement shortly after the decision was handed down.
"This lawsuit is not about health insurance, not about health care, it's about liberty, Cuccinelli said.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who brought a suit of his own, was similarly triumphant.
"The federal court's ruling is consistent with the
Constitution and consistent with the American people," said Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott. "There are limits to congressional power, and Congress has
overstepped its limits here by forcing Americans to purchase health insurance
-- even against their will."
And incoming House Speaker John Boehner called the decision "an encouraging sign for families and small business owners who have revolted against President Obama's job-killing health care law and called for its repeal."
Legal footing questioned
But several constitutional scholars are already scrutinizing the opinion's underpinnings, and exposing what they say are flaws in Judge Hudson's reasoning.
Timothy Jost, a law professor and health law expert at Washington & Lee University in Virginia, told The Wall Street Journal that "Judge Hudson has effectively rewritten the Commerce Clause, which nowhere contains the word 'activity.'"
" The decision not to insure is not 'inactivity,' as [other judges] have already held," Jost said. "It is a decision that results in the transfer of billions of dollars in costs annually. It is commerce, and Congress can regulate it."
And Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, called the ruling "a constitutional outlier that will not stand on appeal."
"In particular, the requirement that individuals maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty falls squarely within Congress's constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, including actions -- such as the decision not to buy health insurance -- that substantially affect interstate commerce," Wydra said.
Cases headed to appeal
Judge Hudson's opinion is at odds with several other federal court decisions on the health care law, and the lack of consensus almost guarantees that the issue will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, a statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler seemed to implicitly concede that possibility."
"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," Schmaler said. "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."
