Judge Voids Key
Part of Health Care Law
Published: December 13, 2010 - New York Times
A federal district judge in Virginia ruled on Monday that the keystone
provision in the Obama health care law is unconstitutional, becoming the first
court in the country to invalidate any part of the sprawling act and ensuring
that appellate courts will receive contradictory opinions from below.
Judge Henry E. Hudson, who was appointed to the bench by President George
W. Bush, declined the plaintifffs request to freeze implementation of the
law pending appeal, meaning that there should be no immediate effect on the
ongoing rollout of the law. But the ruling is likely to create confusion among
the public and further destabilize political support for legislation that is
under fierce attack from Republicans in Congress and in many statehouses.
In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the
lawfs central requirement that most Americans obtain health
insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the
lawfs mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue
that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat
those with expensive chronic conditions.
The judge wrote that his survey of case law gyielded no reported decisions
from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General
Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a personfs decision not to purchase a
product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global
regulatory scheme.h
Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on
the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits filed against the health care law.
The others — in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. — have upheld the law. Lawyers on
both sides said the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme
Court settles the dispute.
The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in
northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus
far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against
the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it.
That has reinforced the notion — fueled by the White House — that the
lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one. The Richmond
case was filed by Virginiafs attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a
Republican, and all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed
a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. Other lawsuits have been
filed by conservative law firms and interest groups.
The two cases previously decided by district courts are already before the
midlevel courts of appeal, with the Detroit case in the Sixth Circuit in
Cincinnati and the Lynchburg case in the Fourth Circuit in Richmond.
The Justice Department, which is defending the statute, is also considering
whether to appeal Judge Hudsonfs ruling to the Fourth Circuit, which hears cases
from Virginia and four other states. That would leave that court to consider
opposite rulings handed down over two weeks in courthouses situated only 116
miles apart.
The Richmond ruling is the latest in a string of recent setbacks for the
Obama administration, following the Democratsf loss of the House in the midterm
elections and last weekfs intraparty mutiny over Mr. Obamafs agreement to extend
the Bush era tax cuts.
But administration officials, who have been bracing for an adverse ruling,
emphasized that Judge Hudsonfs opinion was just one among several. They said
they maintained high confidence that the law eventually would be upheld, and
expressed frustration that negative rulings were attracting more attention than
affirming ones.
The officials stressed that the judgefs decision to not enjoin the law would
defer any actual impact for years. They noted that the insurance requirement
does not even take effect until 2014, when the Supreme Court presumably will
have ruled.
The administration has said that if that provision eventually falls, related
insurance reforms would necessarily collapse with it, most notably the ban on
insurer exclusions of applicants with pre-existing health conditions. But
officials said other innovations, including a vast expansion of Medicaid
eligibility and the sale of subsidized insurance policies through state-based
exchanges, would withstand even a Supreme Court ruling against the insurance
mandate.
gItfs our strongly held view that those provisions surviveh in judicial
decisions invalidating the insurance requirement, one administration official
said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the case
publicly.
However, even state officials who support the new law said Mondayfs ruling
would reinforce calls by many Republican governors and lawmakers to slow down
its implementation.
gI think you might see some air taken out of the balloon nationwide,h said
Jason A. Helgerson, the Medicaid director in Wisconsin, which is about to
transition from Democratic to Republican control of the executive and
legislative branches.
Mr. Helgerson said states still ignore looming federal deadlines at their
peril. For instance, if states do not make adequate progress toward setting up
their insurance exchanges by January 2013, the federal government can take
control.
Judge Hudson, who previously was best known for sentencing the N.F.L.
quarterback Michael
Vick to 23 months for dog
fighting, had telegraphed his leanings in a series of hearings and
preliminary opinions. But the ruling was nonetheless striking given that only
nine months ago, prominent law professors were dismissing the constitutional
claims as just north of frivolous.
The case centers on whether Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause
to compel citizens to buy a commercial product – namely health insurance – in
the name of regulating an interstate economic market. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits
argue there effectively would be no limits on federal power, and that the
government could force people to buy American cars or, as Judge Hudson remarked
at one hearing, gto eat asparagus.h
The Supreme Courtfs position on the Commerce Clause has evolved through four
signature cases over the last 68 years, with three decided since 1995. Two of
the opinions established broad powers to regulate even personal commercial
decisions that may influence a broader economic scheme. But other cases have
limited regulation to gactivities that have a substantial effect on interstate
commerce.h
A major question, therefore, has been whether the income tax penalties levied
against those who do not obtain health insurance are designed to regulate
gactivityh or, as Virginiafs solicitor general, E. Duncan Getchell Jr., has
argued, ginactivityh that is beyond Congressf reach.
Justice Department lawyers have responded that individuals cannot opt out of
the medical market, and that the act of not obtaining insurance is an active
decision to pay for health care out of pocket. They say that such decisions,
taken in the aggregate, shift billions of dollars in uncompensated care costs to
governments, hospitals
and the privately insured.
The ruling is a political score for Mr. Cuccinelli, who filed the lawsuit on
his own rather than join the Pensacola case. It upstages a major hearing in
Pensacola, Fla., scheduled for Thursday before Judge Roger Vinson of Federal
District Court, who is expected to rule early next year. Like Judge Hudson,
Judge Vinson has expressed reservations about the insurance mandate.
Mr. Cuccinelli, who was elected in 2009, has said he filed on his own because
Virginia passed a law this year aimed at nullifying the federal insurance
requirement, giving the commonwealth a distinct constitutional claim. Others
attribute the strategy to political ambition, suggesting that Mr. Cuccinelli did
not want to share the spotlight and knew he could exploit the accelerated pace
of judging in Richmondfs grocket docketh to raise his profile.
Mr. Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit minutes after President
Obama signed the law on March 23, and has been discussing the case since on
cable television shows and before research groups. He follows each hearing and
ruling with a news conference.
Even before Mondayfs ruling, Mr. Cuccinelli and Gov. Robert
F. McDonnell of Virginia, also a Republican, were seeking an agreement with
the Justice Department to bypass the Court of Appeals and file for expedited
review by the Supreme Court. That would have the effect of further marginalizing
the Pensacola case, and the politicians bringing it. The Supreme Court rarely
takes such requests, and the Justice Department has not publicly expressed an
opinion.