Florida Federal Court Rules Entire Health Care Act Unconstitutional and Void

After having found that the provision which mandates all Americans to purchase insurance or face a penalty violated the Constitution, the Judge went on to rule that the entire Health Care Reform Legislation is VOID.

PENSACOLA, FL (Catholic Online) - On December 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson held that the mandate within the Act which would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage or face a statutory penalty is unconstitutional. The opinion contained the following rejection of the mandatory provision: "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. In doing so, [this] enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.] " Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinnelli argued that the mandatory purchase provision of the Federal Health Care Law was an unconstitutional extension of the authority of the Federal Government. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson agreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia and ruled the mandate to purchase insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." However, he did not hold that the entire Health Care Act was unconstitutional. Rather, Judge Hudson severed the provisions related to the mandatory purchase and the penalties associated with it. Court observers have eagerly awaited the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The Court was asked in a Case styled "State of Florida, by and through Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al., Plaintiffs, v. the United States Department of Health and Human Services et al." to also find that the mandatory provisions of the Act were unconstitutional. 26 Attorneys General or Governors of the States of 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 filed the lawsuit. On Monday, January 31, 2011, Senior United States District Judge Roger Vinson issued a 78 page legal opinion which can be read in its entirety here. Having read the entire opinion as a constitutional lawyer, I can report that it is a thorough, well-researched and strong rejection of the mandatory provisions of "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". It goes even further than Judge Henry Hudson's decision. In this stunning defeat for the Obama administration, Federal Judge Roger Vinson declared the entire Act to be unconstitutional. After having found that the provision which mandates all Americans to purchase insurance or face a penalty violated the Constitution, the Judge went on to rule that the requirement is not able to be severed from the rest of the legislation. In short, this Federal Court judge found the entire Health Care Reform Legislation to be VOID. Early reports made note of the fact that the judge did not grant the request of the Attorneys General and the Governors for the extraordinary injunctive relief as they had requested. The implication was that this was somehow not a complete victory for the Plaintiffs. However, the Court opinion indicates that an injunction was unnecessary because the judge issued a Declaratory Judgment ruling that the Act is unconstitutional and void. In the Courts opinion therefore, such an injunction was not necessary. In the paragraphs preceding the conclusion, Judge Vinson cited standing Court precedent which holds that "when the party to be enjoined is the federal government there is a long-standing presumption "that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." This opinion is as strong and clear as a judicial opinion could possibly be. The judge went to great lengths to make sure that it not be read as a political statement of any sort. Judge Vinson noted, "The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government. "For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." However, Judge Roger Vinson did just that! Some early reports on this stunning Federal Court decision pulled out piecemeal sections of the 78 page opinion in an attempt to paint this opinion as politically motivated. Any honest reading of the whole opinion will demonstrate this is not the case. In effect, one more Federal Court has found that the "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is unconstitutional.  In the Courts own  words "The individual mandate is outside Congress' Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional."

There is no doubt this case is headed to the US Supreme Court. The reasoning set forth by Judge Roger Vinson appear to this lawyer and court observer to send a strong indicator to the US Administration of where the highest Court of the land will come down.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'