A federal judge has ruled on behalf of the state of Virginia that a key part of President Obama's health care law, passed in March, is unconstitutional.
Here's a rundown on what that news means, and what the next steps may be for the Obama White House as the law gradually goes into effect.
How big a blow is this to supporters of the law?
"It's a huge deal," Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School who has played a key role in efforts to get the law struck down, told The Lookout. Barnett argued that the ruling offers further evidence that the momentum in the dispute over the law's constitutionality is with his side. "A year ago, my law professor colleagues were all saying this is a slam-dunk" in favor of the Obama administration, he said. "And now it turns out to be a slam-dunk the way that WMDs were a slam-dunk."
[Rewind: Judge overturns California's gay marriage ban]
But the law's supporters downplay the significance of the ruling. They point out that two other district courts -- one in Michigan, one in Virginia -- have rejected similar challenges to the law. They also note that District Court Judge Henry Hudson, who issued Monday's ruling, is a George W. Bush appointee, and that he had already appeared highly skeptical of the Obama administration's argument in support of the law. They even point to Hudson's financial ties to the Virginia official pushing the lawsuit.
Still, most observers have long expected that the case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Monday's decision puts things one step closer to that happening. In that sense, it's unquestionably good news for the law's opponents.
What's the nub of the legal dispute?
Lawyers for the state of Virginia argue that the "individual mandate" portion of the health care law -- that is, the part that requires Americans to have health insurance or else pay a fine -- is unconstitutional. Imposing a penalty on people merely for declining to buy insurance, they charge, is outside the scope of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, which says that the federal government can regulate issues only that relate in some way to interstate commerce.
There's precedent for this view, the law's opponents say. They cite a 1995 case in which the Supreme Court invalidated a law making it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. In that decision, the court found that the law didn't regulate economic activity, and thus fell outside Commerce Clause protections.
Lawyers for the Obama administration counter that the individual mandate is well within the scope of what the courts have defined as interstate commerce, in part because people who don't get insurance and rely on emergency rooms for care are burdening other taxpayers. The law's supporters point to a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court found that the federal government could criminalize the growth and possession of medical marijuana, even when the end product was sold and consumed within a single state, on the grounds that doing so was part of an effort to control the interstate drug trade.
What would happen to the law if the Supreme Court ultimately rules for Virginia? Would the whole health care law go out the window?
That's hard to say. The case concerned only the individual mandate portion of the health care law, and that disputed portion of the law is what the Supreme Court would ultimately rule on, as well. That means that other parts of the law -- the expanded access to Medicaid, for instance -- could potentially survive, even if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate.
But there's no guarantee. That's because the law doesn't contain a "severability clause," which would have made it explicit that if one part of the law were struck down, other unrelated parts would still stand. As a result, the White House appears to have already conceded that regulations governing the insurance industry can't be separated from the individual mandate, since both would fundamentally affect the insurance industry.
In his ruling, Judge Hudson did explicitly sever the individual mandate from the rest of the bill -- a disappointment for the law's opponents, and a source of hope for the law's supporters. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would necessarily do the same.
[Rewind: Judge who overturned drilling moratorium owned stock in drilling companies]
How does the ruling affect the law's implementation, currently underway?
Hudson declined Virginia's request to block implementation. So for now the work of implementation -- in which federal and state officials draw up specific regulations -- is going forward. And, it's worth noting, the individual mandate isn't scheduled to go into effect until 2014, by which time the issue will probably be resolved.
Who's behind the effort to get the law overturned?
The Virginia case is spearheaded by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican. Along with several other controversial and high-profile initiatives, the health care challenge has helped turn Cuccinelli, elected in 2009, into a rising conservative star. Cuccinelli's campaign website already touts today's victory.
What happens now in the legal process?
A federal appellate court will hear the government's appeal of Hudson's ruling. If that court, too, rules in favor of Virginia, then the Obama administration would appeal to the Supreme Court, which would almost certainly take the case.
Meanwhile, other legal challenges to the law are making their way through the court system. On Thursday, a Florida district court will hear a lawsuit brought by a group of state attorneys general. If this case, too, goes in favor of the law's opponents, then the Supreme Court would probably merge it with the Virginia case, and rule on both challenges together.
So, how is the Supreme Court likely to rule, assuming things get that far?
That's the $64,000 question. Orin Kerr, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington Law School, told The Lookout that despite Monday's ruling, he expects the Supreme Court "will uphold the statute fairly easily." But Barnett, not surprisingly, sees things differently. Last year, he noted, the law's supporters derided the legal challenge as frivolous. "It's not frivolous anymore," he said.
(AP Photo/Gretchen Ertl)
Other popular stories on Yahoo!:
• Man admits to faking burglary to solicit holiday charity
• Amazing before and after photos of the Metrodome collapse
• Video: Putin serenades celebrity audience with classic pop song
Comments
Post a Comment