Dealing a blow to the Obama administration, a federal Judge on
Monday ruled that the requirement that individuals purchase health
insurance — a central component of the national health care law —
“exceeds the constitutional boundries of congressional power.”
In a 42-page ruling (PDF), U.S.
District Court Judge Henry Hudson, an appointee of George W. Bush,
said that the Commerce Clause of the constitution did not give the
federal government the authority to force an individual to purchase
something. He also rejected the Obama administration’s argument
that the mandate to purchase “minimum essential coverage” was
justified by Congressional taxing power. At the same time, Hudson
declined to overturn the entire law, severing the mandate from the
rest of the legislation.
The decision arose from a lawsuit brought by Virginia Attorney
General Ken Cuccinelli, one of the two main legal challenges to
ObamaCare. The other one is led by Florida and involves 19
additional states.
“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,” Hudson wrote. “In doing so,
enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the
Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.”
The judge went on to say that, “Because an individual’s personal
decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance
from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the
Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide a
safe sanctuary…The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is
neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Necessary and Proper Clause may not be employed to
implement this affirmative duty to engage in private commerce.”
The Obama administration had also advanced a secondary argument
that the mandate could be justified under the Congress’s power to
levy and collect taxes. Yet Hudson said this argument didn’t hold
up, because the revenue collection element is incidental to the
mandate — it’s a penalty and its primary purpose is as a
regulatory enforcement mechanism. Also, the legislation itself
cited the Commerce Clause as its constitutional justification.
Hudson did rule against Virginia on two other counts, though. As
enacted, the law did not include what’s known as a “severability
clause,” which specifies that if one part of the law is struck
down, the rest of the law stands. Virginia had argued that it
should be struck down entirely if the mandate is considered
unconstitutional, but Hudson declined to do so, saying the Court
didn’t have sufficient information to determine “what, if any,
portion of the bill would not be able to survive
independently.”
Hudson also declined to grant Virginia’s request for an
injunction against the mandate, because it has not yet gone into
effect.
The judge acknowledged that “the final word will undoubtedly
reside with a higher court.”
It should be noted that in two other lower profile cases,
liberal judges have upheld the health care law. So ultimately, it’s
likely that this will end up having to be decided by the Supreme
Court, with Anthony Kennedy, as always, casting the deciding
vote.
