Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

Florida et al v. HHS
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Full case name	Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Citations	648 F.3d 1235
Judge sitting	Roger Vinson

Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (3:10-CV-91-RV/EMT^[1]) is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida by the State of Florida against the United States Department of Health and Human Services seeking to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (part of the United States' 2010 changes to health care) as unconstitutional.^[2] On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health insurance mandate in section 1501 falls outside the federal authority in the Constitution, and that the provision could not be severed; Judge Vinson therefore concluded the entire PPACA must be struck down.^[3] On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.^[4] On September 26, 2011, it was reported that the Department of Justice would not ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit, leaving the Supreme Court as the only option for appeal.^[5] The Government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the courts ruling. On November 14, 2011 the United States Supreme Court granted cert on the case, setting Oral arguments for March of 2011.^[6]

Litigants

The case was brought by Florida attorney general Bill McCollum on March 23, 2010, hours after the PPACA was signed into law. Joining McCollum were the attorneys general of 12 other states: South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota. All states that are currently in the lawsuit have Republican attorneys general except for Iowa; all have Republican governors except for Washington and Colorado.

More states join the lawsuit

On January 19, 2011, the same day the House voted to repeal the law, new Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R) filed a motion in Pensacola federal court to add six new states to the lawsuit, including Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Wyoming.^[7]

The amended complaint currently features 26 state plaintiffs; additionally, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) joined the lawsuit early on as a co-plaintiff on behalf of its members nationwide. Having allowed the case to proceed in October 2010, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson is expected to rule on the motion for summary judgment in early 2011, but the case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.^[8]

Background

In September 2009, Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey of Baker Hostetler wrote a series of op-eds on the constitutionality of the health-care law in The Wall Street Journal^[9] that caught the attention of McCollum. According to Florida deputy Attorney General Joe Jacquot, the pieces "sparked conversation throughout Mr. McCollum's office on 'state sovereignty and the individual mandate'—the portion of the law that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance".^[10]

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the "individual mandate", and also challenges Medicaid expansion, which opponents believe will sink already struggling state budgets.^[11]

Two federal judges appointed by President Bill Clinton upheld the individual mandate in 2010; but a federal judge in Virginia, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, struck down the individual mandate in December of 2010, although he declined to block the law's implementation.^[12]

The Wall Street Journal called the lawsuit "the most closely watched case in the ongoing political battle over the health-care overhaul".^[10]

Court decisions in the case

On October 14, 2010, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the U.S. states could proceed with the lawsuit to overturn the new health care reform law. David Rivkin was hired to represent the plaintiffs. He argued that if the government could regulate individual decisions to not purchase health insurance there could be no meaningful limits on federal power. "Congress can regulate commerce," he said. "But Congress cannot create it." ^[13]

The government countered that "decisions to not buy insurance, taken in the aggregate, have a direct effect on commerce because uninsured people still consume health care, and often cannot pay; that uncompensated care is subsidized by others and drives up costs for hospitals, governments and privately insured individuals." ^[13]

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the health care law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments. On the issue of the so-called "individual mandate", the law's provision that all Americans obtain health care insurance, Vinson said the plaintiffs had "most definitely stated a plausible claim" for their objections, noting that "the power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent". ^[14]

According to The Wall Street Journal, Vinson "also noted the difference between regulating an economic activity and attempting to regulate an economic non-activity. Most Commerce Clause cases deal with the former, not the latter."^[15] Vinson was quoted as saying:

In this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.

Of course, to say that something is "novel" and "unprecedented" does not necessarily mean that it is "unconstitutional" and "improper". There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.^[15]

On December 16, 2010, Judge Vinson heard oral arguments, days after a Virginia judge ruled that the federal government was overstepping its boundaries by requiring Americans to carry health insurance by 2014.

Plaintiffs, led by outside counsel Rivkin, argued that expansion of Medicaid would overwhelm state budgets; they also argued "the mandatory coverage provision exceeds the legislative authority of the U.S. Congress to regulate interstate commerce by attempting to control the inaction of the uninsured." ^[7]

Government lawyer Ian Heath Gershengorn countered that the $2.5 trillion national health care market was unlike anything else; that those who weren't purchasing insurance were making the economic decision to pay later or shift the cost (the "uninsured are not inactive … this is not a situation of innocent bystanders standing to the side").^[7]

In a Wall Street Journal article, Rivkin called the law "in its design, the most profoundly unconstitutional statute in American history; in its execution, one of the most incompetent ones".^[16]

Vinson's decision

On January 31, 2011, Judge Vinson issued an opinion finding that:

1. Medicaid expansion is not coercive to the States
2. Failing to buy health insurance is not an act of interstate commerce
3. The Necessary and Proper Clause does not allow Congress to impose an individual mandate, and
4. The individual mandate is not severable from the rest of PPACA.^[17]

In summary, Vinson stated "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." ^[18] This decision invalidates not only the requirement of purchasing health care, but the entire Act as signed. The Justice Department expressed its intention to file an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In publishing his opinion, Vinson did not grant an injunction barring implementation of the Act,^[19] stating that such a step is unnecessary because there is a "long-standing presumption" that the federal government would adhere to such a ruling without need for an injunction.^[19] However, a senior White House official stated that, in the absence of an injunction, "implementation will proceed apace".^[19]

11th Circuit decision

On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.^[4]

On September 26, 2011, it was reported that the Department of Justice would not ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit. This means the Supreme Court will hear the case in early 2012 and rule in the midst of the 2012 election season.^[5] On November 14, 2011 the United States Supreme Court Granted Cert to hear the case. The question to be addressed is "Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision."

See also

• Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius

References

1. ^ "Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services". http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_100617_dojhcrsuitbrf.html. 
2. ^ "The Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law". Office of the Attorney General of Florida. http://www.healthcarelawsuit.us/. Retrieved January 24, 2010. 
3. ^ Adamy, Janet (February 1, 2011). "Judge Rejects Health Law". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703439504576116361022463224.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read. Retrieved February 1, 2011. "A federal judge ruled that Congress violated the Constitution by requiring Americans to buy insurance as part of the health overhaul passed last year, and said the entire law 'must be declared void'." 
4. ^ ^{a b} Kendall, Brent (August 13, 2011). "Health Overhaul Is Dealt Setback". The Wsll Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576504383685080762.html. Retrieved September 27, 2011. 
5. ^ ^{a b} Yost, Pete (September 26, 2011). "Govt won't seek appeal in Atlanta on health care". Houston Chronicle. Associated Press. http://www.chron.com/news/article/Govt-won-t-seek-appeal-in-Atlanta-on-health-care-2189795.php. Retrieved September 27, 2011. 
6. ^ "Factobox: Supreme Court's lengthiest oral arguments". Reuters. November 16, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-usa-healthcare-arguments-idUSTRE7AF2WH20111116. Retrieved 2011-11-18. 
7. ^ ^{a b c} Harris, Andrew M. (January 20, 2011). "Ohio, Wisconsin, Four More States Join Challenge to Obama Health Care". Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/ohio-wisconsin-four-more-states-join-challenge-to-obama-health-care.html. 
8. ^ Zink, Janet (January 18, 2011). "More states join Florida lawsuit against healthcare law". The Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/18/2022545/more-states-join-florida-lawsuit.html. 
9. ^ Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (September 18, 2009). "Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html. 
10. ^ ^{a b} Jones, Ashby (September 13, 2010). "Conservative Duo Tests Health Law". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703897204575487963449135280.html. 
11. ^ Khan, Huma (December 16, 2010). "Health Care Battle Moves to Florida". ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/health-care-lawsuit-challenging-medicaid-expansion-individual-mandate/story?id=12406852. 
12. ^ Millman, Jason (January 18, 2011). "Six states ask to join Florida lawsuit challenging reform law". The Hill. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/138565-six-states-asks-to-join-florida-lawsuit-challenging-reform-law. 
13. ^ ^{a b} Sack, Kevin (September 14, 2010). "Suit on Health Care Bill Appears Likely to Advance". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/health/policy/15health.html. 
14. ^ Brown, Tom (October 14, 2010). "Judge lets states' healthcare suit go forward". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014. 
15. ^ ^{a b} Jones, Ashby (October 14, 2010). "Florida Judge Refuses to Block Suit Against Health-Care Law". The Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/14/florida-judge-refuses-to-block-suit-against-health-care-law/. 
16. ^ Stassel, Kimberly A. (December 24, 2010). "Congress's Monstrous Legal Legacy". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035810749744494.html. 
17. ^ Vinson, Roger (January 30, 2011). State of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services. United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/Vinson_HCRuling_0131.pdf. Retrieved February 1, 2011. 
18. ^ Mears, Bill (January 31, 2011). "Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/31/health.care.unconstitutional/index.html?hpt=C1. 
19. ^ ^{a b c} Aizenmand, N.C.; Goldstein, Amy (February 1, 2011). "Judge strikes down entire new health-care law". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013106367.html. 

External links

• Vinson, Roger (January 30, 2011), "State of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services"