For the first time, a judge has struck down the entire healthcare reform law rather than just a part of it, according to a report by Bloomberg.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida declared the whole law unconstitutional but allowed it to stand during appeal of the case and similar cases in other federal districts. The appeals process could take two years and is expected to end up in the Supreme Court.
"The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker," Judge Vinson declared in his ruling on the Florida case, which is considered the most significant challenge to the law, involving 26 states.
With this decision, two federal judges have ruled in favor of the law and two have ruled against all or part of it. Some 16 more cases still await lower-court rulings and will also travel up the appeals ladder.
Like the Florida case and many of the other lawsuits focus on the mandate to buy health insurance and whether it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to regulate "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." Court decisions in the past have held that federal powers over the states do not extend to "inactivity."
Plaintiffs allege a decision not to buy insurance represents "inactivity," but Obama administration lawyers assert it is active because it is placing an economic burden on hospitals, governments and private payors to absorb costs of caring for the uninsured.
The Florida plaintiffs also alleged that the reform law's expansion of state Medicaid programs violated the Constitution as well, but Judge Vinson struck down that argument. A number of states were hoping the Medicaid expansion provision, which does into effect in 2014, would be removed.
Read the Bloomberg report on healthcare reform.
Read more coverage on court rulings on the healthcare reform law:
- Six More States Seek to Join Suit Challenging Individual Mandate
- Michigan Hospital Executives Concerned about Removing Insurance Mandate
- While Health Reform Faces Challenge, Repeal of ACOs Unlikely
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida declared the whole law unconstitutional but allowed it to stand during appeal of the case and similar cases in other federal districts. The appeals process could take two years and is expected to end up in the Supreme Court.
"The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker," Judge Vinson declared in his ruling on the Florida case, which is considered the most significant challenge to the law, involving 26 states.
With this decision, two federal judges have ruled in favor of the law and two have ruled against all or part of it. Some 16 more cases still await lower-court rulings and will also travel up the appeals ladder.
Like the Florida case and many of the other lawsuits focus on the mandate to buy health insurance and whether it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to regulate "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." Court decisions in the past have held that federal powers over the states do not extend to "inactivity."
Plaintiffs allege a decision not to buy insurance represents "inactivity," but Obama administration lawyers assert it is active because it is placing an economic burden on hospitals, governments and private payors to absorb costs of caring for the uninsured.
The Florida plaintiffs also alleged that the reform law's expansion of state Medicaid programs violated the Constitution as well, but Judge Vinson struck down that argument. A number of states were hoping the Medicaid expansion provision, which does into effect in 2014, would be removed.
Read the Bloomberg report on healthcare reform.
Read more coverage on court rulings on the healthcare reform law:
- Six More States Seek to Join Suit Challenging Individual Mandate
- Michigan Hospital Executives Concerned about Removing Insurance Mandate
- While Health Reform Faces Challenge, Repeal of ACOs Unlikely