Obama Citizenship

ObamaCare: Is It Still Enforceable?

By Phil

This is the essential question that John Carney at CNBC asks in his posting, “Is The Obama Administration Throwing Us Into a Constitutional Crisis Over Health Care?”

As a general timeline, first, federal Judge Roger Vinson declared that the ObamaCare bill was “void” because since the bill offered no severability clause, that meant that if any aspect of the bill were found to be unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal), the entire thing would not survive.

He also stated that granting an injunction at the States’ request that would keep the law from taking affect, going forward, even while in the appeals process, would be superfluous, because he had already thrown the entire law out, thereby negating the need to stop something that doesn’t exist from going forward.

Yet, the Obama Administration is saying that the law’s “implementation will continue,” while simultaneously (at least as of the date of this posting) not responding to Judge Vinson’s void order with a request for a stay of the void (presumably until the decision reached SCOTUS).

More fully fleshing out exactly what the “superfluous injunction” decision by the Judge is about, recall from my last posting (and now including further verbiage) what Judge Vinson meant by this action (ruling page 75):

The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs? request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an ?extraordinary? [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and ?drastic? remedy? It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for 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.? See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (?declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court?)?There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.

According to the blogger over at FirstThings:

That means that under the ruling, the law is void and cannot be implemented from this point forward. The Administration?s legal remedy is to seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal.  It cannot just defy a federal court ruling. If it tries, the plaintiffs should go to court for the injunction and/or seek an order of contempt against the administration. Pretending that the ruling doesn?t change anything when it unequivocally does, would be both a petulant and extra legal approach to governance. [emphases original]

All other things being equal, the above paragraph would seem to logically hold, especially with the States (the Plaintiffs in this case) being able to follow up Judge Vinson’s ruling with a request for a hearing to see if the Defendant (the United States of America) should be held in contempt for pursuing a law that has been declared void.

Of course, all other things are not equal, as the same blogger states in an update to his posting.

Remember that Judge Vinson’s jurisdiction, while federal, is restricted to the northern district of Florida, “based” out of Pensacola. The question then becomes, where does this leave the other lawsuits — much less States — when it comes to implementing the ruling?

Bloomberg.com points out that there is now disagreement over which districts could or could not enforce one district’s ruling, and that the ultimate decision could theoretically come from the appellate level, but will more than likely require a final SCOTUS decision:

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola left attorneys general questioning how they should handle the law in their states, said Shurtleff, a Republican whose state joined the Florida lawsuit. ?The question is: Is the law stayed in the 26 states? That needs to be resolved.?

?We don?t think we can advise that this law is void,? Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a Republican who opposes the act, said yesterday in a phone interview. ?It will get resolved fairly quickly with a court decision. I would hope the U.S. Supreme Court would find a way to expedite this.? …

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican opposed to the law and a participant in the Florida lawsuit, said he doesn?t believe the federal statute needs to be enforced following Vinson?s ruling.

?For Wisconsin, the federal health-care law is dead — unless and until it is revived by an appellate court,? Van Hollen said. ?Wisconsin was relieved of any obligations or duties that were created under terms of the federal health-care law.?

Wisconsin, part of the U.S. Seventh Circuit, isn?t within the federal court districts where the law has been litigated.

Here is Bloomberg’s listing of the relevant pending cases:

The cases are State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola); Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 11-01057, and Liberty University v. Geithner, 10- 02347, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond); Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 10-02388, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati).

The answer to the above questions come from either prior Court precedent where SCOTUS ruled on national law that impacted all fifty States or from SCOTUS as the cases will quite likely make their way to that lofty perch.

phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] comSimilar Posts:

• ObamaCare Ruled Unconstitutional; Declared “Void”
• Chris Strunk NY Cases: Writs of Mandamus: SCOTUS Rule 22, DC Circuit Court
• WI State Senators Introduce “Cease and Desist” Sovereignty Resolution
• Today’s SCOTUS Conference
• Hollister v. Soetoro: Judge Denies Specific Motions in Pending Case

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on February 02, 2011 (boomark / email).