news-record.com

NEWS

Judge in Va. strikes down part of federal health care law

Monday, December 13, 2010
(Updated 3:13 pm)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal judge declared a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed, and others are pending, including one filed in Florida by 20 other states.

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

"Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

The lawsuit was filed by Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. The key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

"This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution," Cuccinelli said in a statement after the ruling.

Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

d_random

December 13, 2010 - 1:25 pm EST

Can anyone say "Activist Judge"? ;)

rmacz

December 13, 2010 - 1:47 pm EST

Maybe, we can get this Judge to rule on Obama's birth certificate :-))

HotRodLincoln

December 13, 2010 - 2:05 pm EST

Good...
I hope the people that have fought against this mandated insurance but refuse or don't have the money to purchase a plan are turned away at the hospital and are told to lay in a ditch and die. Republicans are a strange breed, they are against the pro choice movement but don't mind letting you die for lack of insurance as an adult. Fighting the health care bill is the Republican version of a death panel.

buldawg

December 13, 2010 - 2:23 pm EST

HotRod, you are exactly correct. So many complain about being forced to invest in health insurance but simply accept that we must have auto insurance. I know we are only required to have liability insurance by the government, but in a great sense health insurance is the same. It is a matter of personal liability. If you don't have your own health insurance, the rest of us will be stuck paying for your care eventually.

rmacz

December 13, 2010 - 5:45 pm EST

Perhaps you guys are missing something here, algore said it best, "It;s the economy stupid".
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-healt...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-when-asked-where-constitution
People see through the government's redistribution plan, and creating dependency.

Yoda

December 13, 2010 - 2:43 pm EST

The Judges rule was a good ruling, it is unconstitutional for the federal Government requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty. As stated in this article by the Judge, if this goes through then that means the Government could also tell the people what transportation they could or couldn't use not to mention what kind of housing we could build or live in, what foods that we can or can't eat. I mean come on, this has got to be stopped. This is nothing but socialism period. Yes the Judge was right in his decision.

whyus

December 13, 2010 - 3:23 pm EST

It all amounts to socialism...modern day Robin Hood approach..Joe the Plumber stuff where resources of some are reallocated to others without their consent.

citywatcher

December 13, 2010 - 4:50 pm EST

If this judge's ruling holds then we should no longer be mandated by the government to purchase auto insurance. This judge is opening up a can of worms because another judge or lawyer would then be able to argue that mandated auto insurance is unconstitutional.

countryboy

December 13, 2010 - 6:05 pm EST

Please stop with the auto insurance references and apply some thought. You are only "required" to purchase auto insurance for damage or harm you may cause another. You are not required to carry insurance on harm you may cause to yourself or your vehicle. The comments in this forum are mind-numbing. And kudos to a judge who may actually revere the constitution.

balance

December 13, 2010 - 5:04 pm EST

I can see how this is controversial. Opinions issued by federal judges in Virginia and Michigan have found the requirement to be fully in line with the constitution.

On the other hand, I don't think I should have to buy car insurance. If I crash somebody's car, I shouldn't have to pay for their damage. That's just the risk you take if you drive. Also, I shouldn't have to buy health insurance. If I get sick, the bill will be paid by people who DO buy insurance. That is good for me, and it saves me money.

balance

December 13, 2010 - 5:05 pm EST

whyus, socialism would be very different. The state would provide healthcare and there would be no need for insurance.

balance

December 13, 2010 - 5:07 pm EST

Yoda, I'd like you to tell me how this is socialism. Really, can you define socialism and then articulate clear parallels between social and the insurance requirement thing? I bet you can't. If you do, I'll give you a gold star.

rmacz

December 13, 2010 - 5:28 pm EST

How about a state run hospital...ha!

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search