Federal Suit: Health Care Law Unconstitutional and Unenforceable

We filed our complaint in federal court in Washington, D.C. today - a direct challenge to the constitutionally-flawed federal health care law.

We represent five taxpayers and our lawsuit asserts that the mandate forcing Americans to purchase health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution and the religious rights of several of the plaintiffs.

The fact is this provision forcing Americans to buy health insurance is an unprecedented assault on the constitutional freedoms of Americans.  The Constitution specifically grants the federal government, including Congress, limited powers.  It's clear that this individual insurance mandate goes well beyond those enumerated powers and represents the ultimate power play - Congress and the federal government acting as if they possess a police power to pass and enforce any law that they deem advisable.  We're confident the court will conclude that this flawed provision is not only unconstitutional but unenforceable as well.

We filed our complaint in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on behalf of five U.S. residents and federal taxpayers:  Susan Seven-Sky from New York, Peggy Lee Mead of North Carolina, and three Texas residents - Charles "Eddie" Lee, Kenneth Ruffo, and Gina Rodriguez.

The complaint argues that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, along with the imposition of shared responsibility payments for failing to buy and maintain qualifying health insurance, "exceeds the power of Congress" and is "unconstitutional and cannot be enforced."

"Mandating that individuals purchase health insurance is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of congressional power, as Congress has never before required individuals to involuntarily buy a good or service under the guise of its Commerce Clause authority," the complaint asserts. 

The suit also argues:  "If Congress succeeds in asserting this unprecedented claim of authority, it would set a sweepingly broad standard unsupported by the Constitution that would allow Congress to dictate to individuals that they must, or must not, buy countless other goods or services in the marketplace. To interpret the Commerce Clause to afford Congress such vast, all-encompassing authority over the daily lives of Americans would eviscerate the idea of a federal government of limited powers."

Further, the lawsuit contends that the health care law violates the rights of three of the plaintiffs - Seven-Sky, Mead, and Lee - under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).  The suit argues that the requirement to purchase health insurance, under the threat of significant financial penalties, "substantially burdens the exercise of their religion." As the suit explains:  "They are forced to either join a health insurance system that contradicts the tenets of their faith or pay substantial penalties for following the tenets of their faith."

You can read the complaint here.

The defendants named in the suit include: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as well as the U.S. Department of the Treasury and its Secretary, Timothy Geithner.

The suit requests that the court declare the individual mandate provision unconstitutional, declare that the defendants violated the rights of three of the plaintiffs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act , and issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the individual mandate provision.

As you know, just two days ago, we filed an amicus brief - in support of Virginia's legal challenge of the health care law - representing 28 members of Congress and more than 70,000 Americans opposed to the individual mandate provision of the health care law.  You can read that brief here. 

We're also planning to file an amicus brief in support of Florida's legal challenge of the health care law.

This is important litigation and we will keep you informed as developments unfold.