The three judges – two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee – said that requiring individuals to buy health insurance or face a penalty is legitimate and a “valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause.”
“The provision regulates active participation in the health care market, and in any case, the Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity,” the judges concluded in their opinion.
Judge James Graham dissented somewhat from the majority, stating that he was concerned that if Congress was allowed to use its power to levy the mandate, there might not be any limit to that ability in the future.
Challenges to the individual mandate have asserted that Congress does not have the ability to regulate inactivity, that is, the choice to not buy insurance. They also have argued that if Congress can order someone to purchase insurance, it could require Americans to do other things.
The plaintiffs in the 6th Circuit case had appealed a lower court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Those plaintiffs – the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., and three individuals – presented oral arguments to the appeals court on June 1, as did the Department of Justice (DOJ), as the defendant.
In a statement issued after the ruling, DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that the government welcomed the judges’ opinion. “We will continue to vigorously defend the health care reform statute in any litigation challenging it,” said Ms. Schmaler, adding that challenges to other landmark laws such as the Social Security Act and the Civil Rights Act had failed. “We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail.”
Ron Pollack, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, also praised the ruling. “The court – made up of judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents – recognized that health care makes up a substantial portion of the national economy and that Congress has the power to regulate that market,” he said in a statement. “We expect that other appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will reach the same decision.”
Opinions from those other appellate courts – the 4th U.S. Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the 11th U.S. Circuit in Atlanta – are expected soon. Oral arguments in another case will be heard before the 9th U.S. Circuit in San Diego on July 13.