Civil and Human Rights

Judge rejects motion to dismiss 20 states’ lawsuit against health care law

 

A federal judge in Florida on Thursday rejected a motion by the government to dismiss some counts of a multistate challenge to the sweeping health care reform signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson means the lawsuit filed by attorneys general from Florida and 19 other states can proceed on questions of whether the health care law is constitutional in requiring citizens to obtain health care coverage or face financial penalties, as well as forcing states to expand Medicaid.

Vinson threw out four other counts of the lawsuit.

“At this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim,” Vinson’s ruling said of the challenge to whether the health coverage mandate is constitutional.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who filed the constitutional challenge, and officials from some of the other states that joined him applauded the judge’s decision.

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

The liberal Constitutional Accountability Center noted that Vinson dismissed four of the six counts in the lawsuit.

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

Last week, a federal judge in Michigan ruled in a similar lawsuit that the controversial penalty provision is constitutional.

The issue, which is also before a Virginia court, challenges the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause to require the purchase of health insurance.

Other states joining Florida in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

In the Michigan lawsuit, plaintiffs opposed to the Health Care Reform Act asked the court to declare the whole law — or at least the penalty provision of it — to be an unconstitutional tax.

Judge George Caram Steeh disagreed and rejected a motion for an injunction against the law, derisively labeled “Obamacare” by opponents.

“The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out-of-pocket is plainly economic,” the ruling said. “These decisions viewed in the aggregate have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”

Legal experts say they expect the issues to ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Steeh was nominated for the federal bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, while Vinson was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan.

To read CNN’s article, click here.

 

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 30, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.