Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law

[J.E.D]

Another victory for Obama. Of course, the SCOTUS will ultimately decide the fate of the individual mandate, but perhaps this ruling by a conservative-leaning fed court is indicative of how the SCOTUS will rule.

Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law

WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Hill has a decent overview of the situation, including the significance of the decision's author:

But Tuesday’s decision improves the law’s record in federal appeals courts. Two circuits have now upheld the mandate; one ruled against it, and one declined to reach a decision, citing procedural issues. [...]

The fact that [Reagan appointee Judge Laurence] Silberman wrote the decision also provided a major symbolic win to the health law’s supporters, who have long argued that upholding the mandate shouldn’t be a stretch for some of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.

He is the second conservative judge to back the mandate. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, upheld the requirement in a separate case.

And a bit on the content of the decision:

Silberman’s decision is a strong endorsement of the Obama administration’s arguments for the mandate. Notably, he agreed that upholding the insurance mandate would not necessarily give the federal government sweeping new powers in other areas [...]

“It suffices for this case to recognize, as noted earlier, that the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services,” Silberman wrote.

He also rejected critics’ contention that the insurance mandate requires people to perform an economic activity. They argue that Congress can regulate commerce but can’t force people to participate in it. Going without insurance, critics say, is inactivity, and Congress can only regulate economic activity. [...]

Again, Silberman said the text of the Constitution’s commerce clause is on the Obama administration’s side.

“To ‘regulate’ can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market,” he wrote. “Nor was the term ‘commerce’ limited to only existing commerce.”

And though the decision wasn't unanimous, the lone holdout simply thought the case shouldn't be taken up prior to 2014.

The dissenting judge in the D.C. Circuit did not say the mandate is unconstitutional, but rather that the court is barred from reaching a decision on its constitutionality. Judge Brett Kavanaugh said the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which bars people from suing over a tax that hasn’t yet taken effect, should have prevented the circuit court from reaching a decision.

 

[J.E.D]

“It suffices for this case to recognize, as noted earlier, that the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services,” Silberman wrote.