Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void
Posted January 31st, 2011 at 4:10pm in Rule of Law 
Print This Post
Today’s decision by Judge Vinson is another stinging defeat for the administration in its defense of Obamacare. Defenders of the health care bill had tried to paint any legal challenge as “frivolous.” When then-Speaker Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” To wit, Judge Vinson offered a serious response, striking down not only the mandate, but the whole of the health care bill.
In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson dissects the two major claims at issue in this case: whether Obamacare violates the spending clause, particularly the coercion principles announced in South Dakota v. Dole, and whether the mandate to purchase health insurance violates the Commerce Clause.
On the first claim, Judge Vinson sided with the administration. In the second, he offered a detailed analysis of the law which reads like a treatise. Rather than picking and choosing his cases, as many proponents of Obamacare like to do, he went through all of the relevant case law at length before concluding that the mandate violated the Commerce Clause. He correctly observed that “it would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.” He then concluded that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed.” As such, he appropriately struck down the entire law. Today’s decision should be a major source of concern for the Obama administration for at least five reasons.
First, the parties involved. This case involves a majority of the states (26), and the National Federation of Independent Business. If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of “beyond any recent memory.” The sheer magnitude of the parties involved guarantees that the courts on appeal will pay particular attention to this case.
Second, the case creates a very bad trend for the administration. Those courts which have taken the time to more fully develop the record in the case, and to have more briefing and hearings (Virginia and Florida), have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. This is important because, contrary to the White House spin, litigation is not a scoreboard. It is not enough to say that you have won some and lost some. Some district court wins “count” more, because they are more indicative of what is likely to come next. Here, the cases the administration has lost have been better developed, have significant and sophisticated parties, and are in a better position for appeal than the more cursory cases that they have won at more preliminary stages.
Third, the case strikes down the whole of Obamacare based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate. The administration has tried to have it both ways on this one, with the President and key proponents arguing how essential the mandate is, while the Justice Department arguing at times that it was absolutely essential, and at times that it was severable. If the DOJ really wanted to keep the bill severable, perhaps they should not have argued in court that removing the mandate while maintaining the remaining requirements of the bill would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Those who would falsely accuse the Judge of overstepping his bounds must recognize both the standards for severability, which he properly applied, and the damning concession made on this point by the Justice Department.
The fourth problem for the Obama DOJ: Judge Vinson’s decision is thorough, well-reasoned, and likely will be very persuasive to appellate judges, and eventually Justices, who review the case. He was judicious, ruling against the states on the spending clause claim and for them on the Commerce Clause. The most important document in any appeal is the decision below, and Judge Vinson’s will give the court of appeals much to consider. Put simply, Vinson has just made the Obama DOJ’s job much more difficult.
The fifth problem, the Judge granted declaratory relief to the parties, which includes 26 states. Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended, at least as to these 26 states, and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future. At a time when many states face insolvency, the removal of this burden is welcome news. The Obama administration, rather than fight the relief for these 26 states, should extend it to all 50 until the case is finally resolved.
Author: 
25 Responses to “Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void”
George Colgrove, VA on January 31st, 2011 at 4:26pm said:
Better than VA! YES!!!
A government that has to defend itself against the people is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That government has perished from the earth. Nevertheless, we do have emerging a renewal to that form of government from the hard work of that people. Let us hope the momentum continues.
Thanks Judge Vinson!!!
Michael Heilman Bob Jone University on January 31st, 2011 at 4:40pm said:
Amen, Praise the Lord. One more step down. Now let’s find out what the Supreme court says.
Bobbie on January 31st, 2011 at 7:33pm said:
Thank you for standing true to America’s principles and by the people, Judge Vinson.
John Paso Robles,Ca. on January 31st, 2011 at 9:44pm said:
This is good news.Lets hope this oppressive measure dies a quick death.
Jill, California on February 1st, 2011 at 2:56am said:
Judge Vinson did a great job!
His court opinion is lengthy and at times hard to read. But it is well-reasoned and fair. Particularly interesting are his thoughts about how far Congress might extend the reach of the commerce clause if we start down this slippery slope with the individual mandate.
Judge Vinson gets the notion of “right idea, wrong execution.” Our healthcare system has many problems that do need to be fixed. But this is not the way. Judge Vinson admits his reluctance to strike down the well-intentioned parts of the law. But he knows that Congress overstepped its authority, and he knows it’s necessary to stop this monstrosity.
John, SC on February 1st, 2011 at 6:23am said:
As discussed on Hannity last night with Ann Coulter, if this law were found constitutional it would set the precedent necessary for the government to require Americans to make any purchase it wanted and punish those who did not.
The government could require all Americans purchase multi-vitamins or, on the other end of the spectrum, the government could mandate that all Americans purchase a gun.
Think those examples sound preposterous?
From Thomas Sowell’s column “Spilled Milk” released today:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2011/02/01/spilled_milk/page/full/
………………………………..
“We all understand why the Environmental Protection Agency was given the power to issue regulations to guard against oil spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska or the more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But not everyone understands that any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose.
In a classic example of this process, the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.
-snip-
Does anyone seriously believe that any farmer is going to spill enough milk to compare with the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the BP oil spill?
Do you envision people fleeing their homes, as a flood of milk comes pouring down the mountainside, threatening to wipe out the village below?
It doesn’t matter. Once the words are in the law, it makes no difference what the realities are. The bureaucracy has every incentive to stretch the meaning of those words, in order to expand its empire.”
…………………..
When then-Speaker Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” Pelosi responded incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Yes, Ms. Pelosi, we were serious. As a heart attack.
AFG, NV on February 1st, 2011 at 6:51am said:
The core argument is that the mandate regulates inactivity as opposed to activity. But suppose the following hypothetical: Congress imposes an additional flat income tax equivalent to the size of the penalty on everyone in the country, and then exempts people from that tax (or gives them a tax credit) if they have health insurance meeting the minimum standards set by ACA. Would that version be unconstitutional in Conservatives’ eyes?
Surely not. In that case, Congress is not punishing inactivity (not buying insurance), but is subsidizing activity (buying insurance). It also seems identical to every other tax exemption we already have, like for people that own a home. I tend to think, but am not sure, that opponents would argue that this is not a proper hypothetical, because there is a difference between regulatory penalties and taxes.
But then my question is, what is the point? To any rational economic agent, the individual mandate and my hypothetical have exactly identical effects on their incentives. They are no more “free” than they were except for the rhetorical victory that the government now can’t require them to do something; it can just make it so they are effectively forced to by economic circumstances.
-AFG
http://www.afoolsgame.com/?p=63
Gabriel on February 1st, 2011 at 9:15am said:
which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional? It seems nobody here, including the judge can cite specifics. anybody? It’s funny that anybody is taking either of these rulings seriously. These are two well known conservative judges. Good luck getting this “repeal” throught the supreme court. Lets do nothing and see if we can get to 100 million uninsured by 2013, that will be fun to watch.
Barbara Brown on February 1st, 2011 at 9:28am said:
Thank you Judge Vinson. Now the States need to get to the Supreme Court as soon as possible., or they will be held up in Appeals Court. This Obamacare is a tradegy .to the United Staates of America., Again Thank you Judge Vinson
West Texan on February 1st, 2011 at 9:35am said:
This is the greatest news and best call since the three stooges passed this repugnant overreaching legislation. Thanks Robert.
ladysusaniris on February 1st, 2011 at 9:38am said:
May Judge Vinson’s tribe increase.
ladysusaniris Haines City Florida on February 1st, 2011 at 10:58am said:
May his tribe increase.
Robertg222 on February 1st, 2011 at 11:15am said:
“which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional?”
ummmm all of them.
Obama should cut his loses now. Repeal the mess and start over. This time let the Republican lead.
Roger Kingsland, Pittsburgh, PA on February 1st, 2011 at 11:33am said:
Gabriel, can you read? The article was very specific about the elements of the bill that are unconstitutional. Perhaps you should be less concerned with the politics of our judges and more concerned with improving your reading comprehension.
Martin Jones on February 1st, 2011 at 11:41am said:
Gabriel, are you serious? Are you serious?
James Dunn on February 1st, 2011 at 1:10pm said:
@Gabriel – you wrote “which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional? It seems nobody here, including the judge can cite specifics. anybody?”
On page 4 of Judge Vinson’s decision (available from the link in the first paragraph) he states, “In Count I, all of the plaintiffs challenge the “individual mandate” set forth in Section 1501 of the Act”. Now I always find it difficult to find exactly which document is the “official” bill that was passed but using the reference that Judge Vinson included in the first paragraph on page 1, “Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010)”, I found the bill at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf . On page 242 you’ll find SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
Darrell, Powhatan, VA on February 1st, 2011 at 1:11pm said:
Gabriel,
If you actually READ the ruling in full. your questions will be answered. Any layman can read it and comprehend. Of course, this assumes the reader is able to comprehend and reason facts which are abundantly available in the ruling, something most Liberals are predetermined to ignore. Especially the parts that cite the Federalist (sure to make their blood boil).
The text is also a solid example of what “limited and enumerated powers” means. Judge Vinson goes into explicit detail about ALL of the parameters of the case and the dangers of allowing Congress to compel someone to purchase something “simply because they are alive and reside in the United States”.
Unlike some judges; he does not get caught up in the emotions of the case, he simply evaluates what the Constituion allows Congress to do, under what circumstances, and does this Act supercede those limits. In other words, he DID HIS JOB.
The spin is that this is judicial activism, but he did not legislate from the bench. He specifically addresses that in the ruling as well.
This is not just a defeat for Obamacare, it is a case study of why American Progressive nanny-state government intrusionists see the Constitution as an obstacle and not the guise it was intended to be..
Gabriel on February 1st, 2011 at 2:40pm said:
Robert,
all of them? well, could you name a few out of the bill that are unconstitutional?
Roger,
ok then list the “specific” sections that are unconstitutional? so political preference is now allowed to be influential in a court of law? maybe you should try reading a little more.
Martin,
very serious. name a section in HR 3200 that is unconstitutional?
You guys take Heritage opinion and two conservative judges word for it?…please.
Gabriel on February 1st, 2011 at 3:06pm said:
“Vinson was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983″
enough said. We have too many conservative activist judges. Healthcare reform will stand and it will work. nice try though…
anbody with specifics yet…?
West Texan on February 1st, 2011 at 4:28pm said:
To AFG, NV. It’s still a federally forced hard-waiver choice prone to massive corruption regardless of how you look at it. Or as comrades Obama, Reid and Pelosi would say, “You wanted change! Welcome to the new USA (United Socialists of America).” The federal government has continued to overstep their limited role by interjecting themselves into the sovereign affairs of individual states and the private domain of free markets. Truth is, federal taxation was only to collect revenue to cover the costs of defense and foreign policy. Yes indeed, Social Security and Medicare are violations of states’ sovereignty. That’s not to say pull the rug from under today’s recipients. Absolutely not! They should be secure knowing that won’t happen. But current and future workers are faced with a festering national social scheme that’s been ignored for far too long.
Rick on February 1st, 2011 at 4:55pm said:
Gabriel,
Specificly he struck down the entire bill, read the first paragraph of the article.
CaliforniaConservative, Fresno CA on February 1st, 2011 at 5:15pm said:
To Gabriel…
Quit drinking the liberal kool-aid and try re-reading Vinson’s ruling (have you read it in the first place?) Otherwise, try reading the shortened, Heritage stories on this subject to become informed…
As for the country “have[ing] too many conservative activist judges”…give me a break!! Here in the land of fruits and nuts we’ve watched liberal activist judges ‘show the finger’ (twice) in opposition to the will of the people expressed at the ballot box regarding same-sex marriage. California (and this country’s) morals are headed for the crapper due to the over-abundance of liberal activist judges seeking their 15 minutes of fame while turning the rule of law on its head.
Ken in Fredericksburg, Va. on February 1st, 2011 at 8:01pm said:
Gabriel, I have to question your reading comprehension in that the written repose from Judge Vinson was written in English for all to interpret. There is no mystery here; no double meanings; no attempt at subterfuge. However, what is truly amazing is how an emotional cool-aid drinker can look at black and call it white and/or vise verse. You are a stranger to both reason and rationality because you cannot admit you made the wrong choice..
Lisa G in NZ on February 1st, 2011 at 8:41pm said:
@Gabriel said “Healthcare reform will stand and it will work.”
No it won’t. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You want nationalized health care, move to Canada or UK.
…nice try though
Wes – Northwest Indiana on February 1st, 2011 at 9:37pm said:
It has been a painful process but it’s encouraging to see the courts over-ruling this unjust legislation. No doubt it will find its way to the Supreme Court but if the majority of the states have anything to say about it we will overturn Obamcare and start over.