A U.S. judge Thursday put on hold his ruling that President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was unconstitutional, allowing the White House to continue implementing the landmark legislation for now.
But U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson failed to dispel widespread uncertainty about the fate of the highly-politicized health care reform law. He gave the Obama administration seven days to ask an appeals court to quickly review his Jan. 31 ruling and said the law could be declared void if it failed to meet the deadline.
The administration had said it would appeal the Florida judge’s previous ruling. It had warned that the “sweeping nature” of the judgment posed a risk of “serious harm to many Americans” benefiting from the new law, the cornerstone of Obama’s domestic agenda in his first two years in office.
It also said it could hamper efforts to combat fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, the massive federal programs that provide health care to the elderly and poor, and “impose staggering administrative burdens” on the government and its fiscal intermediaries.
“We appreciate the court’s recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted,” Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement after Vinson’s ruling on Thursday.
“We welcome the court’s granting of a stay to allow the current programs and consumer protections, including tax credits to small business and millions of dollars in federal grants to help states with healthcare costs, to continue pending our appeal in the Eleventh Circuit,” she said.
REPUBLICANS OPPOSED
In his January ruling, Vinson sided with the governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all Republicans, in striking down the health care law. He ruled its so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
Republicans opposed the overhaul, which includes provisions allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance and prevents insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, using the issue to make big gains in the Nov. 2 elections.
While Vinson, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and a federal judge in Virginia have ruled against the law, judges in several other states have dismissed challenges.
Vinson is alone in having ruled that the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.
In his ruling on Thursday, Vinson agreed that halting implementation of the law would be “extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty.”
He also said the case was expected to reach the U.S. Supreme, where either side could prevail and the court “may eventually be split on the issue as well.”
The most important thing, he said, was that it be resolved as quickly as possible.
“The Act seeks to comprehensively reform and regulate more than one-sixth of the national economy. It does so via several hundred statutory provisions and thousands of regulations that put myriad obligations and responsibilities on individuals, employers, and the states. It has generated considerable uncertainty while the constitutionality of the Act is being litigated in the courts,” Vinson said.
“The sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be.”
The expedited appeal is more important than the “stay” since the law was still being implemented anyway. This means the DOJ will HAVE TO ask for an expedited appeal that’ll get it to the Supreme Court more quickly. That’s horrible news for Obama.
@Jeff,
Correct they don’t want an expedited review. It actually would have been better for them had the judge order a halt becasue they could deal with that vice what they don’t want – a review.
No, Jeff, it is not horrible news for Obama. More than likely, it gets him a quicker decision that the law is supported by the Commerce Clause.
The ruling on a stay pending appeal is typical, too.
Remember, Obama is an Adjunct Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. I doubt that Jeff is.
Nor Minister R.
I just read this story at 6 other locations and this headline is just completely wrong.
This is not a good ruling, the administration has 1 week to get this appealed/expedited or as the judge has said the states can consider the law invalid.
“U.S. judge refuses to halt new health care law”
Hey jack are you a constitutional professor? HAHAH you are a joke though.
If they wanted an expedited ruling to the supreme court why haven’t they done so to date? Since your whole point is that is what they actually want – I love your sense of humor
**
Jack the paid shill wrote
No, Jeff, it is not horrible news for Obama. More than likely, it gets him a quicker decision that the law is supported by the Commerce Clause.
For a constitutional law professor, Obama either really doesn’t understand the constitution very well, or he’s hoping that an activist court upholds it (or a weak court is afraid to touch it if it has already been implemented). That’s why the administration had been dragging the appeal process.
Obama likely isn’t sure that the current Supreme Court will uphold the law since there are 5 conservatives on it, with varying views on the limits of the commerce clause. However, Kennedy is one of the oldest, so if Obama’s presidency can outlast Kennedy, he’ll get to replace him with a more reliable liberal justice (“flipping” the court to 5-4 liberal). The longer the appeals process takes, the more likely that is to happen. It’s too bad that Vinson can’t require an expedited review by the Supreme Court. Only the appellate court can do that. We all know it’s headed to SCOTUS. The 26 states want a quick review. If the administration supported it, they could file with SCOTUS tomorrow.
Vinson issued the 20 page ruling today after the Obama administration had asked him to clarify his original opinion and tell the government whether his ruling was meant to strike down provisions of the law currently in effect.
In the ruling Vinson is critical of Justice Department lawyers for waiting nearly two weeks before filing a “motion to clarify.”
“While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be,” Vinson wrote, “it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.”
He reiterated his finding that the Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the individual mandate and said that because the mandate was unseverable from the rest of the Act the entire legislation was void. He said that his order applied to all parts of the law, including those provisions currently in effect.
He said he had expected the government lawyers to immediately seek a stay of the ruling.
“It was not expected” he wrote, “that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”
This is terrible news for Obama; it gives Holder a week to get his appeal together……should have done this for the Panthers at the Philly polls.
Hussein wants to kick this can down the road until after the 2012 elections……Kennedy would be propped up like ‘Weekend at Bernies’ until after the ‘12 election, when if there is a God we have another 1 termer.
I believe it is currently 3 to 2 in favor of the constitutionality of the health care law. So, according to some commenters, three federal courts don’t know what they are talking about. This is a politicized topic, with (from what I have read) the three in favor being Democratic appointees and the two opposed Republication appointees. The ultimate decision in the Supreme Court may well be just as political with Republican appointees occupying five (I believe) of the nine slots. We’ll see, however.
Irrelevant – It only takes 1 against to stop the process. But ok let’s do it your way. The 2 you mentioned represent at least 26 of the 50 states
**
I believe it is currently 3 to 2 in favor of the constitutionality of the health care law. So, according to some commenters, three federal courts don’t know what they are talking about. This is a politicized topic, with (from what I have read) the three in favor being Democratic appointees and the two opposed Republication appointees. The ultimate decision in the Supreme Court may well be just as political with Republican appointees occupying five (I believe) of the nine slots. We’ll see, however.
Vinson is clearly an activist judge. He is trying to push the Adminstration into following a legal strategy that they don’t wish to follow.