Litigation

FL Court is Latest Health Care Law Battleground

By Peter Hardin

Judge C. Roger Vinson today became the fourth federal district judge to formally examine the constitutionality of the new U.S. health care reform law, hearing arguments in Florida on behalf of 20 states challenging the plan.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, led the states’ lawsuit, which contends the health care law unconstitutionally requires Americans to buy health insurance coverage and imposes a burden on state budgets.

During arguments in Pensacola, a lawyer for the states said the federal government is reaching beyond its constitutional power when it regulates “inactivity,” such as not buying insurance, according to a Bloomberg article.

The courtroom proceedings have drawn heightened attention since Judge Henry Hudson this week ruled unconstitutional the provision of the law requiring most people under 65 to get health insurance or pay a cash penalty (see Gavel Grab).

Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson were appointed by Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, respectively. The law is President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

There are parallels between the Florida lawsuit and the one in Virginia, according to a New York Times article; it was headlined, “Health Suits Stir Concerns on Court Partisanship.” The article reported:

“The Florida and Virginia challenges to the law were filed in courthouses where conservative judges prevail, and where appeals would flow to the country?s most conservative circuits. Scores of Republicans in Congress have signed supporting briefs, as have conservative advocacy groups.”

Two federal judges who have upheld the law so far were appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Some legal experts say it is not surprising to see a partisan pattern of district court rulings in such cases of unsettled law.

Andrew D. Martin, a law and political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the newspaper,  ?Where district judges are presented with questions of first impression and have to make the type of constitutional judgments the Supreme Court does all the time, it?s not at all surprising to see those choices line up along party lines.”

That view was not shared by lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr. of Washington, a Republican who argued on behalf of states in Pensacola today. He called it the breakdown on health care rulings so far ?a matter of accident and irrelevance? and said  he had ?not heard a single partisan remark? from his clients.

A National Public Radio report discussed these issues, under the headline, “Health Care Rulings Reignite Judicial Bias Debate.” This report paid special attention to Judge Hudson’s ownership of an interest in Campaign Solutions Inc., a Republican consulting firm.

“The provocative question in this case, I think, is, you know, what would possess a federal judge to maintain a continued financial interest in a group pushing litigation in his own courtroom?” said James Sample, who teaches law at Hofstra University. He  co-authored with Justice at Stake and partner groups a report on soaring judicial election spending in the past decade.

Judge Hudson has said there is no conflict of interest (see Gavel Grab).

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 16, 2010 (boomark / email).