A federal judge in Florida ruled on Jan. 31 that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
The ruling and the direction of his opinion were expected.
The suit was filed in March 2010 by 20 states; in the last month, another 6 states joined. Two private citizens and the National Federation of Independent Business also joined the suit. The parties challenged the law's requirement that individuals purchase health insurance and also the ACA's requirement that Medicaid eligibility be expanded to offer insurance to more Americans.
In his 78-page decision, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola said that the individual mandate exceeds Congress' regulatory powers.
"The individual mandate falls outside the boundary of Congress' Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers," he wrote. "By definition, it cannot be 'proper.' "
Judge Vinson also ruled that the whole law would have to be struck down, as the individual mandate could not be separated out from the ACA, in part because the legislation appeared to be built on a framework that required all the pieces for it to work.
"If ... the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate," he wrote.
While the judge agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the mandate exceeded Congress' authority, he did not agree with their proposition that the government was overreaching through its proposed Medicaid expansion.
The plaintiffs failed to provide ample evidence of its claims, Judge Vinson ruled. As a result, "the states have little recourse to remaining the very junior partner in this partnership," he wrote.
The White House characterized the ruling as outside the mainstream of judicial thinking and said that the Administration would continue implementing health reform while it appeals. During a background briefing, senior administration officials said that Judge Vinson's decision that there was no severability in this case flew in the face of legal precedent.
And, on the White House blog, Stephanie Cutter, a senior advisor to President Obama, wrote, "This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge's decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings, and patient protections that were included in the law at risk."
The Department of Justice issued a statement that it was still analyzing the decision, but said that, "there is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal."
After the ruling, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement that the decision "affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't."
Rep. Boehner filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the plaintiffs.
"All parties involved should request that this case be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court for a swift and fair resolution," he said in the statement.
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which filed a brief on behalf of the federal government, said in a statement, "Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal."
He also said that if the decision is not reversed, "it would have devastating consequences for America's families."
Most court watchers expect the case to end up at the Supreme Court. A federal judge in Virginia also ruled against the insurance mandate in December; two other judges have upheld the ACA.