Rule of Law

Health Care Reform Challengers Tested At Fourth Circuit

    Washington, DC – After observing today’s health care reform arguments in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel of Constitutional Accountability Center, released the following statement:

    “As demonstrated in today’s oral argument, the Affordable Care Act’s challengers have no answer to the Constitution’s text and history and long-established Supreme Court precedent dating to the founding era. Contrary to the claims of the Tea Party and their allies, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to enact a national solution to a national problem.

    Echoing Resolution Six from the Constitutional Convention — which sets forth the Framers’ direction that the federal government have powers to act where the states are separately incompetent — Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained that states are incapable of solving the health care crisis on their own.

    Anti-reform advocates failed to effectively address the common-sense point that Congress must be able to encourage individuals to obtain health insurance as part of a comprehensive effort to reform the national health care industry. As General Katyal said, ‘This case is really about a political dispute that is better addressed outside the courtroom.’

    This very point was made perfectly by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, formerly the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit, who wrote in an earlier Commerce Clause case that ‘it cannot be that the mere expression of judicial derision for the efforts of the democratic branches is enough to discard them.’ There is no better rebuke to Judge Hudson’s opinion.”

#

Resources:

Constitutional Accountability Center’s brief filed in Cuccinelli v. Sebelius: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/virginia-ex-rel-cuccinelli-v-sebelius/4th-circuit-amicus-brief-virginia-ex-rel

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

###

More from Rule of Law

Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Nairne v. Landry

In Nairne v. Landry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on vote dilution is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Voting Rights and Democracy
 

United States v. Paxton

In United States v. Paxton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Materiality Provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits states from denying the right...
Voting Rights and Democracy
 

Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen

In Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether requiring voters to include their birthplace on voter registration forms violates the Materiality Provision of the...
Rule of Law
 

Iowa v. SEC

In Iowa v. SEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering the legality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new climate-related disclosure requirements.
Rule of Law
 

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB

In Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s update to its Examination Manual clarifying that discrimination may...
Rule of Law
 

Lackey v. Stinnie

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case.