May 23, 2012

Florida Judge Deems Health Reform Law Unconstitutional in 26 State Challenge

Florida Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson serving in Pensacola, Florida, ruled that key components of the health reform law are unconstitutional and declared the entire law void.

In his decision, Judge Vinson writes:

“… I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

The ruling by Judge Vinson may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Separately, an appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is scheduled in May to hear challenges to two conflicting lower-court rulings, one upholding the legislation, the other invalidating part of it.

As we have noted in other posts, it is likely that the constitutionality (or not) of the health reform law will not be certain until a final ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Lisa Gingerich is the Health Care Practice Group Leader. She advises health care systems, hospitals, physician groups, health care suppliers, and ambulatory surgery centers regarding antitrust, business affiliations, mergers and acquisitions, fraud and abuse, tax exemption and corporate compliance. 

414-287-1507

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.