Legal Smackdown for ObamaCare | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


By Jay Sekulow1313436129000

It is a critical step forward to undoing ObamaCare.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today declared the individual mandate, the provision forcing Americans to purchase health insurance, unconstitutional.

In a split decision, posted here, the court found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."

"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said. The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.  The ACLJ's summary of the 11th Circuit's opinion is posted here.

The court concluded:

This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.

We agree. This is the argument we made in our amicus brief that we filed in this case on behalf of 74 Members of Congress and more than 70,000 Americans. Our amicus brief is posted here.

While the appeals court did not declare the entire law unconstitutional, by striking the individual mandate, the entire law is clearly in jeopardy. The individual mandate is such a core provision of ObamaCare, that without it, it's very difficult to see how this law can be salvaged.

As you know, we're directly involved in challenging ObamaCare as well. We're preparing for oral arguments to be presented to a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. September 23rd urging the court to reinstate our lawsuit challenging the individual mandate. In our latest court filing, posted here, we contend that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause, an argument “grounded in the Constitution.”

There's still a lot of active litigation to play out. Keep in mind that all legal roads lead to the Supreme Court. But today's decision gives us even more hope that this troubling health care law ultimately will be put to rest.

Latest in

The Obamacare Deception Threatens America

By Harry G. Hutchison1477500715632

Promising to bring costs down and increase access on the one hand, and enacted with enormous fanfare and unequaled deception on the other, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) became law in 2010. This law was perhaps the most ambitious social legislation in...

read more

“Pure Applesauce”

By Matthew Clark1456416575920

One of Justice Scalia’s most memorable moments came in a compelling dissent to one of the recent ObamaCare cases. He cut through the majority opinion’s ambiguous, contorted, and complex legal justification for upholding the “SCOTUScare” exchanges in just two words: “ Pure applesauce. ” Pondering...

read more

HHS Mandate Challenges Move Forward

By Geoffrey Surtees1442515755574

Thanks to two decisions of a federal court of appeals handed down today ( here and here ), it is now almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether the Obama administration can force religious entities, institutions, and groups -- under pain of severe financial penalties...

read more

Helping Little Sisters of the Poor

By Geoffrey Surtees1440436960697

Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court held in the Hobby Lobby decision that the HHS Mandate, a federal regulation requiring non-exempt employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs and services to its employees, violated the religious rights of closely held corporations and their owners. It was...

read more