May 22, 2012

D.C. Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality of ACA Individual Mandate

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today (November 8th) upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) individual mandate provision. The court found that Congress has regulatory authority in the insurance market and that ACA is constitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. However, the timing of the D.C. Circuit’s decision prevents the case from being considered by the Supreme Court when it meets on Thursday to discuss whether to take up any of the ACA lawsuits.

The majority addressed Congress’s regulatory authority in the insurance market and found that, “Broad regulation is an inherent feature of Congress’s constitutional authority in this area; to regulate complex, nationwide economic problems is to necessarily deal in generalities.” Further “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local–or seemingly passive–their individual origins.”

The court held that while the individual mandate is an “encroachment on individual liberty… it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”

The 2-1 majority opinion was drafted by Judge Silberman, a Regan nominee, and joined by Judge Edwards, a Carter nominee. The dissent, which found that courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the case, was drafted by Judge Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush nominee.

The D.C. Circuit is the fourth U.S. Court of Appeals to hear challenges to the ACA. Previously, the Fourth Circuit dismissed challenges against the ACA, the Eleventh Circuit held the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and the Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Meghan O’Connor is a member of the Health Care Practice Group. Her practice focuses on general health law including managed care and provider contracting, risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Prior to joining von Briesen, Meghan worked for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services where she consulted with states regarding federal health law, regulation and policy, evaluating managed care contracts and conducting compliance reviews.

414-287-1586

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.