Litigation

U.S. to Appeal Health Care Ruling to 4th Circuit

By Peter Hardin

The U.S. Justice Department plans to appeal to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a federal judge’s ruling that declared unconstitutional a key section of the new U.S. health care reform law.

Virginia’s attorney general had brought the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature domestic legislation, and had wanted any appeal of Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling to be expedited directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justice Department disagreed, according to a Bloomberg article.

?The department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it,? said Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

Judge Hudson, an appointee of President George W. Bush, struck down a section of the law requiring most Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine (see Gavel Grab). The constitutionality of that provision, called the individual mandate, continued to draw extensive debate; at the same time, Judge Hudson’s political pedigree and background also sparked some media coverage.

Regarding the controversial provision, another federal judge in the same state as Judge Hudson, Virginia, recently issued a ruling that was diametrically opposed, the Wall Street Journal reported. He was Judge Norman Moon, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton. The article delves into the different reasoning adopted by each of the judges.

The provision crops up in 20 lawsuits over the federal law that are advancing in U.S. courts around the country, according to a Washington Post article that is accompanied by a graphic with information about the status of each challenge.

Already, some analysts are working to predict the outcome of an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. A Christian Science Monitor editorial, for example, suggests that Justice Anthony Kennedy could be the swing vote, and it outlines a hypothetical opinion he could write rejecting the individual mandate.

Also exploring how the Supreme Court might rule were articles from Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek.

Gavel Grab has touched earlier on Judge Hudson’s Republican roots. Now a Huffington Post commentary adds to the political biography of the judge with this excerpt from a review of his memoir, “Quest for Justice,” in Virginia Lawyers Weekly:

“After Congress created a new judgeship for the Richmond Division in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2001, Hudson expressed his interest and picked up the support of the state’s two Republican senators.

“Hudson’s description of the selection process candidly acknowledges its political nature. ‘Campaigning for a federal judgeship is almost as challenging as running for political office,’ he writes. ‘Rather than court voters, aspirants solicit endorsements from influential political activists with close ties to the senators, particularly the activists who raise the big money.

‘That is where 20 years of active service to the Republican party, and helping in the various campaigns of each senator, paid dividends and gave me the edge,’ he said.”

Judge Hudson issued his ruling in a lawsuit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Today, a Washington Post article reported that Judge Hudson moderated in 2009 a political debate between Cuccinelli and his Democratic opponent, Steve Shannon. The Democrat said that as moderator, Judge Hudson “was very judicious and didn’t reveal any political leanings one way or the other.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 15, 2010 (boomark / email).