FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion ^ | January 31, 2011 | Professor William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law School

[2ndDivisionVet]

Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).

Here is the conclusion of the Order:

"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, 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. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional."

Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order

[steve86]

This is going to get real interesting with budgets, since Republicans can say we aren't funding anything that is found to be unconstitutional and we are not allowing agencies to start writing regulations for something that has been found to be unconstitutional. At the very least, ObahmaCare has been set back 3 to 9 months, if not totally scrapped.

Probably the most apt FReeper commentary so far in terms of practical implications.

[plain talk]

While I like the outcome I didn’t like that this judge thinks congress has the right to regulate 1/6 the economy and the other garbage mentioned about how great the intentions were If obamacare had no individual mandates but was based on single payer this judge may have liked it.

[Paisan]

will Obama and the NAACP now declare the Judge a racist?

You’re close.

The REAL problem here is the climate of hate and negativity fostered by the Extreme Right Wing and best exemplified by the vitriol flooding the air-waves by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh...

[editor-surveyor]

Judge Roger Vinson needs to wear bady armor, and be accompanied by heavily armed security, lest he suffer a repeat of what happened to Judge Roll in Tucson for a similar ruling.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The obamunists will also try to get a contrary decision in another jurisdiction in case the appellate court for Florida doesn’t want to hear their appeal.” <<

.
But one cannot enter the docket for the purpose of affirmation of existing law. For what purpose would relief be granted if there is no injury?

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“Will SCOTUS say that we serfs have ‘no standing?’”

We serfs may not, but we didn’t bring the suit; 26 of our states did!

[tophat9000]

Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).

I say we nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

F..kin' A!