Federal Judge Narrows Health Care Reform Suit, Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit Entirely; Constitutional Accountability Center Responds

 

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER

For Immediate Release: October 14, 2010
Contact: Doug Pennington, Press Secretary
(202) 296-6889 x303
pennington@theusconstitution.org

Federal Judge Narrows Health Care Reform Suit, Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit Entirely; Constitutional Accountability Center Responds

CAC President Doug Kendall: “We are happy that Judge Vinson narrowed this lawsuit today, but what he really should have done is dismiss it altogether.”

Washington, DC – Today, in a preliminary ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson rejected many of the claims initiated by state Attorneys General against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but refused to dismiss one claim challenging the expansion of the Medicaid program and another challenging the legislation’s minimum coverage provision.

“We are happy that Judge Vinson narrowed this lawsuit today,” CAC’s President Kendall said, “but what he really should have done is dismiss it altogether.” “In particular,” said Kendall, “the idea that expanding Medicaid to cover millions of Americans that desperately need health care is somehow “coercive” on the states is ludicrous.” According to Kendall:

Judge Vinson recognizes what he calls the “simple and unassailable fact” that state participation in Medicaid is “entirely voluntary.” He also recognizes that the claim advanced by the plaintiffs has never been applied to strike down any provision of any federal law. Judge Vinson’s refusal to take the next step and dismiss this claim entirely is baffling and disturbing.

Read CAC’s Issue Brief, “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution,” here.

“Judge Vinson’s refusal to dismiss the claim against the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision was also deeply troubling,” said CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra. “Regulating such behavior is clearly within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The decision not to buy health insurance is a profoundly economic act. The people who do so are making an economic decision to self-insure,” Wydra said.

Constitutional Accountability Center plans to file an amicus brief in the next stage of the proceedings on behalf of a group of state legislators who seek to carry on their work protecting the health and security of their states’ citizens.

#

Resources:

CAC Issue Brief, “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution”: 
http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/issue-brief/states-health-care-reform-and-constitution-0

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

###

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes