Constitutional Accountability Center Statement on Virginia Judge’s Ruling in Health Care Lawsuit

Washington, DC – On news that U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson today declared unconstitutional the minimum coverage provision  established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Constitutional Accountability Center released the following statement:

                “Judge Hudson’s ruling today is a constitutional outlier that should not stand on appeal,” said Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel of Constitutional Accountability Center.  “The ruling is not only inconsistent with the rulings of the two other federal judges who have already considered the merits of the minimum coverage provision and found it constitutional, the ruling is also out of step with over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent on the powers of Congress.  In particular,” Wydra continued, “the requirement that individuals maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, including actions—such as the decision not to buy health insurance—that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

                CAC has filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of more than 75 state legislators in the still-pending health care reform lawsuit in Florida, defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

#

Resources:

 

Brief amicus curiae from 78 State Legislators and Constitutional Accountability Center, defending the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Florida case: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/us-department-health-human-services-v-florida-florida-v-hhs/florida-district-court

The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution:http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/issue-brief/states-health-care-reform-and-constitution-0

Strange Brew: The Tea Party’s Errant Constitutional Attacks on Health Care Reform: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/1829

Redefining Federalism: Listening to the States in Shaping “Our Federalism”: http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/book/redefining-federalism-listening-states-shaping-our-federalism

##

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

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.