advertisement

Appeals court strikes down health insurance requirement

Friday, August 12, 2011 | 6:31 p.m. CDT

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, which is considered the centerpiece of the law, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. Missouri isn't among the states suing.

But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

Government attorneys can — and likely will — ask the full 11th Circuit to review the panel's ruling. They also can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which many legal observers expect to have the final say on the issue.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus said in a lengthy dissent that the majority ignored the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy."

The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult+s up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."

On Friday, the National Federation of Independent Business, which joined the 26 states in the challenge, urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the rest of the health care overhaul. The federation has argued the federal health care law would cost small businesses millions by forcing them to provide health insurance for employees.

"Small-business owners across the country have been vindicated by the 11th Circuit's ruling that the individual mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional," the group said. "The court reaffirmed what small businesses already knew — there are limits to Congress' power. And the individual mandate, which compels every American to buy health insurance or pay a fine, is a bridge too far."

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. Marcus also was previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

Meanwhile Friday, an Ohio Supreme Court ruling appeared to clear the way for voters in that state to have a chance to reject parts of the health care law on Nov. 8. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected a liberal policy group's lawsuit challenging certification of the so-called Health Care Freedom Amendment. The lawsuit had claimed petitions carrying 69,000 signatures were flawed.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

T S August 12, 2011 | 6:48 p.m.

We regulate all sorts of commerce through the tax code (with taxes, deductions, and credits).

If we have a health insurance mandate, then I suppose we have an electric car mandate too. After all, when I file my taxes, I can either get a credit for purchasing an electric car or pay more in taxes (without the credit) for not buying an electric car.

It turns out, then, that we also have a blindness mandate, disability mandate, livestock mandate, ethanol mandate, coal production mandate, child mandate, over-65 mandate, etc.

There is no mandate. There's a choice. It's just that some people's identities are based on opposing the other political party and blaming their sad situations on being held down by the guvmint.

For reference, here is the text from the Senate summary of the bill:
"Shared Responsibility: Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter; for those under 18, the penalty will be one-half the amount for adults. Exceptions to this requirement are made for religious objectors, those who cannot afford coverage, taxpayers with incomes less than 100 percent FPL [Federal Poverty Level], Indian tribe members, those who receive a hardship waiver, individuals not lawfully present, incarcerated individuals, and those not covered for less than three months."

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire August 12, 2011 | 7:06 p.m.

"For reference, here is the text from the Senate summary of the bill:
"Shared Responsibility: Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter; for those under 18, the penalty will be one-half the amount for adults. Exceptions to this requirement are made for religious objectors, those who cannot afford coverage, taxpayers with incomes less than 100 percent FPL [Federal Poverty Level], Indian tribe members, those who receive a hardship waiver, individuals not lawfully present, incarcerated individuals, and those not covered for less than three months.""

Thanks for sharing that. Not nearly as draconian as even I had thought.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 12, 2011 | 9:49 p.m.

Well golly gee, I thought Obama's plan to require everyone (not the exempted classes listed above) would result in lower insurance prices for everyone? But if everyone isn't covered, and if the plan doesn't make health insurance affordable to all, then why the bloody heck did Congress pass it?

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 12, 2011 | 10:17 p.m.

"then why the bloody heck did Congress pass it?"

Perhaps because they were all Democrats, always looking for new "flows" of cash to Washington D.C.?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements