Latest Legal Threat to Health Care Reform Dashed in Federal Court

The Obama administration won a small victory Wednesday when a federal appellate court ruled that part of the president's health care initiative requiring Americans to buy health insurance was constitutional. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought against "Obamacare" by the Thomas Moore Law Center arguing that potentially requiring citizens to buy a minimum amount of insurance or face penalties could subject them to financial hardship.

This is the first time a Republican-appointed federal judge has ruled in favor of health care reform, personally affirming its merits. More than 30 legal challenges have been filed altogether in response to Obama's landmark reforms, and conservative critics promise several more. The Thomas Moore Law Center plans to appeal higher, eventually reaching the Supreme Court with its lawsuit that states the law is too broad and could lead to more federal mandates. Let's take a look at the latest efforts to derail Obama's landmark reform.

Jan. 19, 2011

Honoring their "Repeal and Replace" promise to voters after sweeping victories in Congress last fall, House Republicans pushed legislation to repeal the nation's health care overhaul through with a 245-189 vote. According to Daily Chronicle, GOP leaders stated they would have congressional committees propose changes to the existing legislation, specifically regarding the requirement for individuals to purchase coverage.

"This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here," was the response from Rep. Michele Bachman, who recently announced her bid for the presidency in 2012. The Republican victory faces strong opposition in the Senate, as well as the threat of presidential veto.

Jan. 31, 2011

Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In his response to a motion to clarify, Vinson wrote that his declaratory judgment carried the same weight as an injunction. Stopping short of actually issuing an injunction, Vinson noted that it was in the best interest of all parties to move the case as quickly as possible to the Supreme Court, where an ultimate decision on health care reform will likely be made. The defendants appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Feb. 22, 2011

Federal Judge Gladys Kessler dismissed Mead et al v. Holder et al, a lawsuit that argued the individual mandate to purchase insurance was not within Congress' Commerce Clause powers. This was the third lawsuit that was ruled in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the U.S. District level. Kessler posed the questions of whether the decision to buy health insurance was a purely economic one, and if so does everyone's decision regarding health insurance substantially affect the national health care market. Since she considered the decision an economic one, it lies within Congress' regulatory powers. Three of the five plaintiffs made arguments that the purchase of health insurance would burden their exercise of religion, to which Kessler stated "...this is not a substantial burden on their religious exercise, and hey, if it bothers them that much, they can just pay the fee."

June 8, 2011

Oral arguments began for State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. According to Daily Report, the plaintiffs for this lawsuit include 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals, Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg. They basically charge that Congress exceeds its authority by controlling the budgetary process and legislative agendas of the plaintiff states, thereby forcing them to assume sole responsibility of exorbitant costs of the new act.

June 23, 2011

New Jersey State Assemblywoman Alison McHose introduces a bill that would essentially make enforcing the requirements mandated in the 2010 U.S. healthcare reform law a criminal offense. According to the New Jersey Herald, the bill provides criminal penalties for any federal agent or employee who attempts to enforce the law, including a possible $5,000 in fines and five years in prison. The penalties are slightly lower for state employees.

Frank Askin, a professor of constitutional law at Rutgers, said, "The state cannot nullify a federal law. New Jersey has a better chance of seceding from the Union than enforcing (McHose's) bill." McHose's bill is the latest in a long line of efforts from lawmakers, organizations, and citizens to vilify Obama's health care plan.