Factbox: Lawsuits challenging U.S. healthcare reform12/13/2010
http://westlawnews.thomson.com/California_Litigation/News/2010/12_-_December/Factbox__Lawsuits_challenging_U_S__healthcare_reform/Dec 13 (Reuters Legal) - Within hours of President Barack Obama signing into law last March the healthcare reforms he had championed, several states filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of new requirements, including one that individuals buy health insurance.
Most legal scholars expect one of the suits to reach the Supreme Court. Individuals, advocacy groups, and hospitals have also sued.
Here are some details about the current state of the challenges being made:
RULINGS SO FAR* U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that the federal government could not compel a person to buy health insurance in a lawsuit brought by Virginia, which had sued over the requirement. The government is expected to appeal. Hudson also said the penalty charged for not having health insurance is not a tax, shooting down the federal government's argument that it is empowered to levy taxes. But the judge did not invalidate the entire law, saying he could not determine if the law would stand without the individual mandate. See Commonwealth of Virginia et al v. Sebelius et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond), No. 3:10-cv-188.
* The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed on Dec. 9 a lawsuit filed by a cardiologist, a patient, and a physicians' advocacy organization that had alleged the law violates the Commerce Clause and the Fifth Amendment. See New Jersey Physicians Inc et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark), No. 2:10-cv-01489.
* On Nov. 30, a federal judge ruled the individual mandate and a requirement some employers buy coverage for employees were legal under the Commerce Clause in a lawsuit filed by Liberty University, a college founded by the conservative evangelical leader Jerry Falwell. See Liberty University Inc v. Geithner et al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia (Lynchburg), No. 6:10-cv-00015.
* In October, another federal judge partly dismissed a suit filed in Michigan by the Thomas More Law Center, ruling Congress had the authority to enact the law under the Commerce Clause. See Thomas More Law Center et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit), No. 2: 10-cv-11156.
* A California court has also dismissed a lawsuit, now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that said the healthcare law violates individual rights, increases taxes, and violates physician-patient privileges, along with violating the Commerce Clause. The district court ruled that the plaintiffs -- California state legislator Steve Baldwin and the Pacific Justice Institute -- lacked standing to bring the suit. See Baldwin et al v. Sebelius et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego), No. 3:10-cv-1033.
* In November, U.S. District Court Judge David Dowd partially denied and partially granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by U.S. Citizen's Association in Ohio. While he dismissed arguments that the law violates freedom of association, due process and privacy protections, Dowd is still considering arguments that the law exceeds federal authority granted by the Commerce Clause. See U.S. Citizen's Association et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Akron), No. 5:10-cv-01065.
PENDING CASES
* Altogether, at least 24 lawsuits have been filed in federal courts by states and private parties.
* Oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment will take place on Dec. 16 in a lawsuit filed by Florida and 20 states that says the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause does not apply to economic inactivity, such as not buying health insurance, and that the law threatens state sovereignty. See State of Florida et al v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola), No. 3:10-cv-91.
WHAT IS AT ISSUE?
* The states' main concern is that the federal government is now allowed to force people to buy products because the law's "individual mandate" requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The federal government counters that everyone will inevitably pay for healthcare, whether through insurance or during an emergency, and that without the individual mandate, premiums will rise.
* If the courts decide the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the question becomes whether the mandate can be cut away from the law and leave the other requirements intact. The states say that without the individual mandate the entire law is rendered toothless.
* Parts of the U.S. Constitution that have come into play are the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the states, the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal power supreme to states' power, and the 10th Amendment, which leaves to states all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.
* Some of the suits also focus on whether abortions are funded with taxpayer dollars under the law.
* When Obama lobbied for the bill, he said there would not be a new tax associated with the individual mandate requiring coverage. The penalty for not having health insurance, though, is collected through tax filings, and the federal government now argues the fine is indeed a tax it is empowered to levy. States say the U.S. government does not have the authority to charge the fine and point to the discrepancy between Obama's statements and the federal government's arguments. Sources: Court documents, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Reporting by Lisa Lambert and Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters; Additional reporting by Terry Baynes of Reuters Legal)
