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
March 2, 2026

AI and Constitutional Democracy at 250

Host: Constitutional Accountability Center and William & Mary (W&M) Law School’s Digital Democracy Lab
Civil and Human Rights
January 16, 2026

What’s Happening To Civil Rights Under ICE? w/ David Gans

Make It Make Sense with Grant Hermes
Grant talks to David Gans about what we’re seeing happen to civil rights and Constitutional...
Civil and Human Rights
January 19, 2026

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, A Moment to Reflect on the Constitution

Washington Monthly
The Constitution is occasionally amended and continually interpreted, and it still offers hope for the...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Cases Implicating Constitution’s Fundamental Guarantee of Equality for all Persons

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral arguments at the Supreme Court this morning in Little v....
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Praveen Fernandes, David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2025

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Two-Tiered System of Justice That Deprives Military Families of the Same Rights Afforded to Civilians

The Rutherford Institute
WASHINGTON, DC — In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families...
Civil and Human Rights
November 20, 2025

Supreme Court Could Redefine the Limits of State Power

Newsweek
As the Supreme Court considers Chiles v. Salazar, a case examining Colorado’s 2019 ban on gay conversion therapy...