Constitutional challenges to ObamaCare go forward today
Author: Timothy Sandefur
Three significant developments in the constitutional challenges to the Obama Administration’s health care mandate today.
First, a hearing was held today in the Florida lawsuit. That’s the big case in which several states as well as individual citizens are parties, and this is a motion for summary judgment—which means that the judge will soon decide on the constitutionality of the law. Our friend Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute listened to the argument and he has this report: “Judge Roger Vinson is likely to hold the individual mandate unconstitutional. And such a decision would be the most significant development possible at the district court level because the Florida case involved 20 states, with more joining the lawsuit when new governors and attorneys general assume office in January. It is unprecedented for this number of states — again, soon to be a majority — to sue the federal government and it shows the singular and extreme nature of the government’s assertion of raw power here.” Read the rest of his observations over at Cato@Liberty.
Second, PLF this morning filed its opposition to the government’s effort to have our lawsuit thrown out. Here’s the government’s brief, and here is the opposition filed this morning. The feds will have an opportunity to reply on January 10th, and then a hearing will be held, but we don’t yet have a date.
Finally, our friends at the Goldwater Institute filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in their challenge to ObamaCare, arguing that the legislation actually tries to create an un-repealable law, in violation of the Constitution. The feds have filed their opposition to that motion, and you can read that opposition here. No hearing date has been set so far.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›