Litigation

Health Care Ruling Limited in Scope?

By Peter Hardin

Two themes emerged in early media analysis of a court ruling that struck down part of the new health care reform law: That Federal District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling was limited in its scope; and that some supporters of the law denounced “judicial activism.”

Judge Hudson (photo at right) ruled in a Virginia lawsuit (see Gavel Grab) challenging the law’s constitutionality.

He struck down a central provision requiring most Americans to buy health insurance, but his decision did not halt implementation of the law, as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had sought.

In addition, Cuccinelli asked the court to throw out the entire law as unconstitutional if the “individual mandate” provision was invalidated. But Judge Hudson did not comply.

While the ruling from a judge appointed by Republican President George W. Bush was not surprising, a New York Times editorial said, “his decision offers at least some hope for health care reform because it bends over backward to limit the scope of his ruling in two important respects.”

A Washington Post commentary by Ezra Klein was headlined, “Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge’s ruling.” Because of the confined scope of the ruling, “the government can carry on setting up the legislation even as the legal process continues to work itself out,” Klein maintained. He also said problems around the individual mandate could be worked out.

Not all analysts agreed, however; Steven D. Schwinn of the John Marshall Law School decried the ruling’s “breathtaking scope” in the American Constitution Society blog and added, “It’s a proclamation on federal authority and federalism that would take us back to the early twentieth century, the days of an activist and obstructionist judiciary that frustrated the political branches at every turn.”

Republicans cheered the court ruling, according to a Wall Street Journal article. ?Today?s ruling is a clear affirmation that President Obama?s health care law is unconstitutional,? said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, expected to be House majority leader next year.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, meanwhile, said, “Our belief is that when all the legal wrangling is done, this is something that will be upheld,” the Associated Press reported.

The White House health reform director, Nancy-Ann DeParle, pointed out the administration’s encouragement that two other federal judges ruled differently and upheld the law. They were appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The individual mandate in the health care reform law is intended to punish people not for participating in interstate commerce but for failing to do so, Judge Hudson ruled, according to a Christian Science Monitor account. He continued:

?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, [the health-care reform law?s individual mandate] exceeds the commerce clause powers vested in Congress.?

The Monitor quoted Rep. Pete Stark, D-California and a House subcommittee chairman, as criticizing the judge for what Stark called judicial activism.  ?Unfortunately, we already know what happens if this lawsuit succeeds,? Stark said. ?Millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, premiums will go up for working families, and more people will be forced into bankruptcy when they get sick.?

In Huffington Post, Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future wrote a commentary entitled, “Conservative activist judge makes conservative activist decision.”

An alternative view came from Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation. ?Judge Hudson?s ruling against the so-called individual mandate is a powerful reaffirmation of traditional principles of limited government,? he said.

It was the first court ruling to find the individual mandate in the health care reform law, President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment, unconstitutional. It is likely to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court and draw extensive attention to the federal judiciary along the way.

“This decision is a reminder of the importance of the judiciary and the role it plays in protecting constitutional rights and popularly enacted legislation,” said Caroline Fredrickson, ACS executive director. “This latest ruling highlights the importance of making sure that our judiciary is not only operating at full capacity but with the most capable people available.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 14, 2010 (boomark / email).