News

(from the Associated Press, October 14, 2010)

Pensacola, Fla. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Thursday that parts of a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to void the Obama administration's health care overhaul can go to trial, saying he wants hear additional arguments from both sides over whether the law is unconstitutional.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it needs to be decided whether the plan violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to have health insurance or be penalized through taxes and by overburdening the states by expanding their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week.

Vinson set a hearing for Dec. 16. The lawsuits will likely wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum issued a statement praising the ruling as a victory.

"It is the first step to having the individual mandate declared unconstitutional and upholding state sovereignty in our federal system," McCollum said.

He filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities.

The Obama administration has argued the federal government can require that citizens buy health insurance or face tax penalties under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The administration's attorneys had told Vinson last month that without the regulatory power to ensure young and healthy people buy health insurance, the health care plan will not survive. They also argued it's up to an individual taxpayer - not the states - to challenge the section requiring health insurance when it takes effect in 2015.

But David Rivkin, an attorney representing the states, argued the law will destroy the states' constitutional sovereignty by burdening them with uncontrolled Medicaid costs. The federal government is overreaching its taxing authority by penalizing people for not taking an action - not buying health insurance, he said.

Vinson's ruling comes a week after District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia. A federal judge there has allowed the lawsuit to continue, ruling the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.

The other states involved in the lawsuit Vinson is hearing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-suit-over-health-overhaul-can-go-t

Ex-clerk says Vinson is zeroing in on federal law's 'individual mandate'

by Kenric Ward

(from the Associated Press, September 14, 2010)

By Melissa Nelson (AP)

PENSACOLA, FLA. — A federal judge said Tuesday he will probably dismiss only parts of a lawsuit by 20 states, including Texas, challenging the Obama administration’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional, though he didn’t specifically say what portions.

The Obama administration had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the administration disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.

The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Vinson upholds the states’ challenge, he would overturn decades of law enforcing the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, said Ian Heath Gershengorn, deputy assistant attorney general.

“This court is free to disagree with Congress’ policy judgments, but it is not free to overturn 75 years of constitutional law,” he said.

Administration attorneys also argued that the section requiring health insurance doesn’t take effect until 2015 and it’s up to an individual taxpayer — not the states — to challenge the law then.

But David Rivkin, an attorney representing the states, argued that the law will destroy the state’s constitutional sovereignty by burdening them with uncontrolled Medicaid costs. The federal government is overreaching its taxing authority by penalizing people for not taking an action — not purchasing health insurance, he said.

The judge questioned whether the administration was correct in arguing that all Americans are active participants in the health care system regardless of whether they choose to have health insurance and are therefore subject to penalties under the government’s authority to regulate commerce.

Health insurance is the mechanism to regulate the health care market, Gershengorn said.

“The healthiest individual can be hit by a bus. He cannot keep himself out of the health care market,” he said.

But Rivkin likened the health care law to the subprime mortgage crisis.

“If this cost shifting is allowed, then it would let the government demand that people buy a prescribed package of mortgages,” he said.

Florida’s Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida’s most conservative cities. A similar case is unfolding in Virginia.

There, the Obama administration also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, saying Virginia lacked standing to sue, but a federal judge has allowed it to continue, ruling that the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.

The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington.

As with the debate over the law itself, the effort to overturn it through the courts is causing political rifts in many states. Four governors who disagreed with the decisions by their attorneys general to join the multistate suit have attempted to file amicus briefs supporting the Obama administration’s position. Vinson did not accept them for the early stage of the case but did not rule out allowing them if it moves forward.

Additional material from The Washington Post.

Source: http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/judge-wont-dismiss-states-challenge-of-health-law-916609.html