Florida Judge Rules Entire Affordable Care Act Unconstitutional

stethoscope and gavel2.JPGA month after a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the individual mandate provisions of the new health care law are unconstitutional, a judge in Florida has gone a step further by declaring the entire law invalid. The lawsuit – Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services – was filed by the Florida state attorney general, and subsequently joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, plus 25 other states. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six claims in the suit, but allowed the remaining two claims regarding the legality of the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion to go forward.

In today’s decision, (pdf) Judge Roger Vinson, like Judge Henry Hudson in the Virginia case – Commonwealth v. Sebelius – focused on the lawfulness of the individual mandate. In the Virginia case, Judge Hudson concluded that “Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause, or associated Necessary and Proper Clause, to compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction, as contemplated by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision.” In the Florida decision, Judge Vinson similarly reasoned that “the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.” Judge Vinson further concluded that the mandate “cannot otherwise be authorized by an assertion of power under the [Constitution’s] Necessary and Proper Clause.”

Judge Vinson then focused on the issue of severability, which would allow the portions of the bill deemed lawful to remain in full force and effect. Vinson reasoned that “[a]lthough many of the remaining provisions [of the Affordable Care Act] can most likely function independently of the individual mandate, there is nothing to indicate that they can do so in the manner intended by Congress.” Therefore, he reasoned, the entire Act is invalid:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

On the second count under consideration, Judge Vinson disagreed with the plaintiffs’ contention that the Affordable Care Act unconstitutionally expands and alters the Medicaid program to such an extent that the states cannot afford the newly-imposed costs and burdens.

Because two other courts have reached opposite conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on this matter.

This entry was written by Ilyse Schuman.

Photo credit: Feverpitch Photography

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.