ObamaCare’s day in court

(from The American, February 2, 2011)

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion granting summary judgment to plaintiffs in Florida, et. al v. Department of Health and Human Services, changes the landscape over which the merits of ObamaCare will now be debated. As the judge said, the lawsuit is not about whether healthcare reform is a good idea or a bad idea, but whether Congress has the constitutional authority to require nearly every American to obtain and maintain healthcare insurance. This healthcare insurance “mandate” is at the core of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and it is that requirement the court determined to be unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers.

In particular, the court rejected the administration’s claims that the simple failure to have healthcare insurance as prescribed by Congress is a form of economic “activity” that Congress can reach under its power to regulate interstate commerce. The court agreed that, if the commerce power were interpreted so broadly that Congress could reach the failure to act, simply because that failure may have an economic impact at some level, then there would be no effective limit on congressional/federal power.

This, of course, was not the purpose or intent of the Constitution’s framers, and upholding the exercise of such a power would be fundamentally inconsistent with the federalist system they adopted. As a result, the court struck down the individual mandate and, because that central provision cannot be severed from the rest of the PPACA, the entire Act has fallen.

There will obviously be appeals, and ultimately it will be the Supreme Court that settles the issue. For the time being, however, the federal government cannot enforce the PPACA against any of the 26 states who are parties to this lawsuit, or against the individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business, who are also plaintiffs in this case. Our task will now be to defend Judge Vinson’s excellent decision through the appeals process.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker Hostetler LLP and are the lead outside counsel in the Florida litigation for the 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Source: http://blog.american.com/2011/02/obamacares-day-in-court/

Transcript: David Rivkin live with Laura Ingraham

(Original air date: February 1, 2011)

Ingraham: Really good news yesterday in Federal District Court in Florida.  Joining us now is lead counsel for the successful ObamaCare challenge, David Rivkin.  David, great to talk to you.

Rivkin: Good to be here, Laura, and thanks very much.

Ingraham: Are you guilty of any of the isms that George Bush was talking about yesterday?

Rivkin: No, I don’t think so.

Ingraham: Nativism, populism, protectionism. All the isms are apparently what’s really the problem in the United States. Anyway, I don’t want to drag you into that, but David, let’s talk about this Florida case.  I loved how Judge Vinson not only, of course, did the right thing on the Commerce Clause, saying “You can’t do this. The Constitution is meaningless if you say that requiring people to buy insurance is permitted under the Commerce Clause.”  But then he went a step further and quotes Obama back to the Justice Department!

Rivkin: Yes, it’s an excellent opinion, Laura, and I really think it takes us to another level. It’s a 78-page opinion.  It really provides an important legal baseline for the appeals court to take into account. It was beautifully argued, extremely well written, and goes, as you point out, well beyond the Commerce Clause, and has an excellent analysis of why Justice’s [Justice Department’s] arguments regarding the so-called Necessary and Proper Clause — which I believe is going to be the most consequential legal argument down the road — why that clause does not support the mandate.

Ingraham: Let’s talk about what’s next because now we’ve had — and correct me if I’m wrong — two district courts rule that the [individual] mandate is unconstitutional and one uphold it.  Is that correct?

Rivkin: Two, actually, have upheld it.  One in Virginia in the Liberty University case upheld the mandate, and the second one, which is probably the one you are thinking about, in Detroit — the Thomas Moore case.

Ingraham: So right now is there any chance this could get fast-tracked to the Supreme Court or are they holding back on that?

Rivkin: DOJ is holding back on that.  Virginia has asked the DOJ for this when their case was decided in December.  The DOJ has said no and the case is on schedule in the Fourth Circuit.  In all likelihood, the Obama Administration is not interested in fast-tracking this case.  It would have been ideal, of course, but they would like to run out the clock and delay the presentation of this case to the Supreme Court as much as possible.  So I personally think what we’re going to get is hopefully an expedited consideration in the Eleventh Circuit, and we’ll be done with it — again, ideally — by late fall of this year, and the case will be sort-worthy and should be considered by the Supreme Court early in 2012 with the argument in January or February and a decision probably in June of next year.

Ingraham: Let’s talk about where you think this could possibly go in the court.  I clerked on the court and predicting what’s going to happen there is always a fool’s errand, but given what you know about the justices and their bedrock views on the Commerce Clause — if you had to guess right now how it would go down, how would it go down?

Rivkin: I’m quite hopeful — and again we’re speculating, as you said — it would be a 5-4 decision in our favor, and the reason for that is Justice Kennedy is the swing vote [who] cares very deeply about federalism.  In fact, I would say this is the one area where he’s been the leading voice in the court.  If you look at his opinions going back to the Lopez case — a very important case affirming limitations of the Commerce Clause — which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act.  He wrote a really strong concurrence that in a moving fashion emphasized the uniqueness of the dual sovereignty system with federal government exercising limited and enumerated powers and the states exercising general police powers.  He called it the most distinctive feature of American constitutionalism. And if you look at his decision in the Comstock case, which came out in May of last year, he has a much briefer concurrence but echoes very much same themes.  So this is an issue, Laura, which Kennedy feels very strongly about.

Ingraham: Well all I know is that all these folks out there who maybe haven’t focused on the judicial branch and the judicial appointments, we are reminded once again how important it is for Republicans to win the presidency and to have that power of appointment again at the Supreme Court, because heaven forbid something happens and we lose one of these conservative justices on the court, this is all over.

Rivkin: That is correct.  I’m hopeful that all of the conservative justices are in good health and the balance in the court will not change.  But you’re absolutely right.  It is enormously consequential.  If, of course, one of the more liberal justices retires and President Obama has another appointment, it would not change the balance.  But if one of the conservative justices for whatever reason steps down, it would fundamentally change the equation.

Listen to the podcast here: David Rivkin live with Laura Ingraham

Healthcare law lawsuit will go to trial

(from the Assoicated Press, October 14, 2010)

By Melissa Nelson

Pensacola, Fla. (AP) – A federal judge ruled Thursday that parts of a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to void the Obama administration’s health care overhaul can go to trial, saying he wants hear additional arguments from both sides over whether the law is unconstitutional.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it needs to be decided whether the plan violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to have health insurance or be penalized through taxes and by overburdening the states by expanding their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week.

Vinson set a hearing for Dec. 16. The lawsuits will likely wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum issued a statement praising the ruling as a victory.

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

He filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida’s most conservative cities.

The Obama administration has argued the federal government can require that citizens buy health insurance or face tax penalties under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The administration’s attorneys had told Vinson last month that without the regulatory power to ensure young and healthy people buy health insurance, the health care plan will not survive. They also argued it’s up to an individual taxpayer – not the states – to challenge the section requiring health insurance when it takes effect in 2015.

But David Rivkin, an attorney representing the states, argued the law will destroy the states’ constitutional sovereignty by burdening them with uncontrolled Medicaid costs. The federal government is overreaching its taxing authority by penalizing people for not taking an action – not buying health insurance, he said.

Vinson’s ruling comes a week after District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia. A federal judge there has allowed the lawsuit to continue, ruling the overhaul raises complex constitutional issues.

The other states involved in the lawsuit Vinson is hearing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-suit-over-health-overhaul-can-go-t