Misplaced Pages

Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:38, 30 March 2012 edit74.192.119.192 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 15:41, 3 April 2012 edit undoCrcorrea (talk | contribs)75 edits additional section on public opinion summaryNext edit →
Line 181: Line 181:


The Court announced in December 2011 that it will hear approximately six hours of oral argumentation over a three-day period, from Monday, March 26 to Wednesday, March 28, 2012, covering the various aspects being questioned by the principal parties involved in this and other related cases concerning the PPACA.<ref name="arguelength" /><ref name="scotusCal">{{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthlyArgumentCalMar2012.html|title=Monthly Argument Calendar (March 2012)|publisher=]|accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref><ref name="scotusFilings">{{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx|title=Filings in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)|publisher=]|accessdate=December 8, 2011}}</ref> The Court announced in December 2011 that it will hear approximately six hours of oral argumentation over a three-day period, from Monday, March 26 to Wednesday, March 28, 2012, covering the various aspects being questioned by the principal parties involved in this and other related cases concerning the PPACA.<ref name="arguelength" /><ref name="scotusCal">{{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentViewer.aspx?Filename=MonthlyArgumentCalMar2012.html|title=Monthly Argument Calendar (March 2012)|publisher=]|accessdate=December 19, 2011}}</ref><ref name="scotusFilings">{{Cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx|title=Filings in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)|publisher=]|accessdate=December 8, 2011}}</ref>

==Public opinion summary==

A variety of polls tracked public opinion towards the Affordable Care Act <ref>Mark Blumenthal. Huffington Post, Huffpost Pollster, (March 27, 2012). </ref> All those poll asked citizens about their general attidudes toward the bill, such as “do you approve or disapprove?” However, in February, 2012, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind conducted a nationwide study to measure the opinion of voters on the constitutional question: “Can Congress Mandate Health Insurance?” Results showed that a majority of voters (56%) concurred that Congress cannot legally mandate health insurance, while (34%) of voters asserted that Congress can legally require everyone to have health insurance. <ref>Peter Woolley and Bruce Peabody. Huffington Post, Huffpost Pollster, (March 26, 2012). </ref>

There were significant differences among political parties. Republicans agreed by a sizable majority (85%-10%) that Congress cannot mandate health insurance. However, Democrats (54%-33%) and liberals (62%-23%) shared the opinion that Congress can mandate health insurance. <ref name=Fairleigh>Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (March 20, 2012). </ref>

In addition, voters were asked whether or not Congress can legally impose a tax penalty on those who do not have health insurance. For this more specific question, voters were even more likely to strike down the Act, by a margin of 65%-29%.<ref name=Fairleigh />

There was an additional split between voters who approved the way President Barack Obama was handling his job as president, and those who did not approve. Those who approved the job the president was doing, were also likely to say that Congress can mandate health insurance by a margin of (60%-24%). Those who disapproved of the job the president is doing, said Congress cannot legally require health insurance by a margin of (87%-11%). The pollsters noted that voters were polled on the question before the Supreme Court issued the decision.<ref name=Fairleigh />

“The Court is not as isolated from public opinion as many think,” commented Bruce Peabody, a professor of political science who worked on the poll. “But in this case, since there is disagreement among the parties and organs of government, the Court has greater latitude.”<ref name=Fairleigh />


== See also == == See also ==

Revision as of 15:41, 3 April 2012

Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Full case name Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
DecidedJanuary 31, 2011
Citation648 F.3d 1235
Case history
Subsequent actions11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 decided August 12, 2011
Court membership
Judge sittingRoger Vinson
2012 United States Supreme Court case
Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 28, 2012
Full case nameFlorida v. Unites States Department of Health and Human Services
Docket nos.11-400
11-393
Citations565 U.S. (more)
Case history
Prior11th Circuit Court of Appeals, 648 F.3d 1235
Court membership
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Article 1
26 U.S.C. § 5000A

Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services is a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida by the State of Florida against the United States Department of Health and Human Services seeking to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (part of the United States' 2010 changes to health care) as unconstitutional. On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health insurance mandate in section 1501 falls outside the federal authority in the Constitution, and that the provision could not be severed; Judge Vinson therefore concluded the entire PPACA must be struck down. On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part; the panel agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain. The federal government declined to seek an en banc review by the Eleventh Circuit and instead petitioned for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the panel's ruling. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case, setting oral arguments for March 2012.

Litigants

The case was brought by Florida attorney general Bill McCollum on March 23, 2010, hours after the PPACA was signed into law. Joining McCollum were the attorneys general of 12 other states: South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota.

More states join the lawsuit

On January 19, 2011, the same day the House voted to repeal the law, new Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R) filed a motion in Pensacola federal court to add six new states to the lawsuit, including Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa and Wyoming.

The amended complaint currently features 26 state plaintiffs; additionally, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) joined the lawsuit early on as a co-plaintiff on behalf of its members nationwide.

Background

In September 2009, Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey of Baker Hostetler wrote a series of op-eds on the constitutionality of the health-care law in The Wall Street Journal that caught the attention of McCollum. According to Florida deputy Attorney General Joe Jacquot, the pieces "sparked conversation throughout Mr. McCollum's office on 'state sovereignty and the individual mandate'—the portion of the law that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance".

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the "individual mandate", and also challenges Medicaid expansion, which opponents believe will sink already struggling state budgets.

Two federal judges appointed by President Bill Clinton upheld the individual mandate in 2010; but a federal judge in Virginia, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, struck down the individual mandate in December of 2010, although he declined to block the law's implementation.

The Wall Street Journal called the lawsuit "the most closely watched case in the ongoing political battle over the health-care overhaul".

Court decisions in the case

On October 14, 2010, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the U.S. states could proceed with the lawsuit to overturn the new health care reform law. David Rivkin was hired to represent the plaintiffs. He argued that if the government could regulate individual decisions to not purchase health insurance there could be no meaningful limits on federal power. "Congress can regulate commerce," he said. "But Congress cannot create it."

The government countered that "decisions to not buy insurance, taken in the aggregate, have a direct effect on commerce because uninsured people still consume health care, and often cannot pay; that uncompensated care is subsidized by others and drives up costs for hospitals, governments and privately insured individuals."

Vinson dismissed four of six claims the states brought against the health care law but said he saw grounds to proceed on two counts, including one relating to the way critics say it would force huge new spending by state governments. On the issue of the so-called "individual mandate", the law's provision that all Americans obtain health care insurance, Vinson said the plaintiffs had "most definitely stated a plausible claim" for their objections, noting that "the power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent".

According to The Wall Street Journal, Vinson "also noted the difference between regulating an economic activity and attempting to regulate an economic non-activity. Most Commerce Clause cases deal with the former, not the latter." Vinson was quoted as saying:

In this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.

Of course, to say that something is "novel" and "unprecedented" does not necessarily mean that it is "unconstitutional" and "improper". There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.

On December 16, 2010, Judge Vinson heard oral arguments, days after a Virginia judge ruled that the federal government was overstepping its boundaries by requiring Americans to carry health insurance by 2014.

Plaintiffs, led by outside counsel Rivkin, argued that expansion of Medicaid would overwhelm state budgets; they also argued "the mandatory coverage provision exceeds the legislative authority of the U.S. Congress to regulate interstate commerce by attempting to control the inaction of the uninsured."

Government lawyer Ian Heath Gershengorn countered that the $2.5 trillion national health care market was unlike anything else; that those who weren't purchasing insurance were making the economic decision to pay later or shift the cost (the "uninsured are not inactive … this is not a situation of innocent bystanders standing to the side").

In a Wall Street Journal article, Rivkin called the law "in its design, the most profoundly unconstitutional statute in American history; in its execution, one of the most incompetent ones".

Vinson's decision

On January 31, 2011, Judge Vinson issued an opinion finding that:

  1. Medicaid expansion is not coercive to the States
  2. Failing to buy health insurance is not an act of interstate commerce
  3. The Necessary and Proper Clause does not allow Congress to impose an individual mandate, and
  4. The individual mandate is not severable from the rest of PPACA.

In summary, Vinson stated "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." This decision invalidates not only the requirement of purchasing health care, but the entire Act as signed. The Justice Department expressed its intention to file an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In publishing his opinion, Vinson did not grant an injunction barring implementation of the Act, stating that such a step is unnecessary because there is a "long-standing presumption" that the federal government would adhere to such a ruling without need for an injunction. However, a senior White House official stated that, in the absence of an injunction, "implementation will proceed apace".

Eleventh Circuit decision

On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.

Supreme Court

On September 26, 2011, it was reported that the Department of Justice would not ask for an en banc review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This means the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in March 2012 and will rule in the midst of the 2012 election season. On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to portions of three cross-appeals of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion: one by the states (Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.), one by the federal government (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. v. Florida); and one by the NFIB (Nat'l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius). The Court narrowed the questions to be addressed to:

  • Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision.
  • Does PPACA's mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance exceed Congress's enumerated powers and, if so, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?
  • Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole no longer apply?
  • Whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars the pre-enforcement challenge by the respondent's to the minimum coverage provision of the PPACA?

The Court announced in December 2011 that it will hear approximately six hours of oral argumentation over a three-day period, from Monday, March 26 to Wednesday, March 28, 2012, covering the various aspects being questioned by the principal parties involved in this and other related cases concerning the PPACA.

Public opinion summary

A variety of polls tracked public opinion towards the Affordable Care Act All those poll asked citizens about their general attidudes toward the bill, such as “do you approve or disapprove?” However, in February, 2012, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind conducted a nationwide study to measure the opinion of voters on the constitutional question: “Can Congress Mandate Health Insurance?” Results showed that a majority of voters (56%) concurred that Congress cannot legally mandate health insurance, while (34%) of voters asserted that Congress can legally require everyone to have health insurance.

There were significant differences among political parties. Republicans agreed by a sizable majority (85%-10%) that Congress cannot mandate health insurance. However, Democrats (54%-33%) and liberals (62%-23%) shared the opinion that Congress can mandate health insurance.

In addition, voters were asked whether or not Congress can legally impose a tax penalty on those who do not have health insurance. For this more specific question, voters were even more likely to strike down the Act, by a margin of 65%-29%.

There was an additional split between voters who approved the way President Barack Obama was handling his job as president, and those who did not approve. Those who approved the job the president was doing, were also likely to say that Congress can mandate health insurance by a margin of (60%-24%). Those who disapproved of the job the president is doing, said Congress cannot legally require health insurance by a margin of (87%-11%). The pollsters noted that voters were polled on the question before the Supreme Court issued the decision.

“The Court is not as isolated from public opinion as many think,” commented Bruce Peabody, a professor of political science who worked on the poll. “But in this case, since there is disagreement among the parties and organs of government, the Court has greater latitude.”

See also

References

  1. "The Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Law". Office of the Attorney General of Florida. Retrieved January 24, 2010.
  2. Adamy, Janet (February 1, 2011). "Judge Rejects Health Law". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 1, 2011. A federal judge ruled that Congress violated the Constitution by requiring Americans to buy insurance as part of the health overhaul passed last year, and said the entire law 'must be declared void'.
  3. ^ Kendall, Brent (August 13, 2011). "Health Overhaul Is Dealt Setback". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
  4. ^ Yost, Pete (September 26, 2011). "Govt won't seek appeal in Atlanta on health care". Houston Chronicle. Associated Press. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
  5. ^ "Factobox: Supreme Court's lengthiest oral arguments". Reuters. November 16, 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
  6. ^ Harris, Andrew M. (January 20, 2011). "Ohio, Wisconsin, Four More States Join Challenge to Obama Health Care". Bloomberg.
  7. Zink, Janet (January 18, 2011). "More states join Florida lawsuit against healthcare law". The Miami Herald.
  8. Rivkin, David B.; Casey, Lee A. (September 18, 2009). "Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional". The Wall Street Journal.
  9. ^ Jones, Ashby (September 13, 2010). "Conservative Duo Tests Health Law". The Wall Street Journal.
  10. Khan, Huma (December 16, 2010). "Health Care Battle Moves to Florida". ABC News.
  11. Millman, Jason (January 18, 2011). "Six states ask to join Florida lawsuit challenging reform law". The Hill.
  12. ^ Sack, Kevin (September 14, 2010). "Suit on Health Care Bill Appears Likely to Advance". The New York Times.
  13. Brown, Tom (October 14, 2010). "Judge lets states' healthcare suit go forward". Reuters.
  14. ^ Jones, Ashby (October 14, 2010). "Florida Judge Refuses to Block Suit Against Health-Care Law". The Wall Street Journal.
  15. Stassel, Kimberly A. (December 24, 2010). "Congress's Monstrous Legal Legacy". The Wall Street Journal.
  16. Vinson, Roger (January 30, 2011). "State of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services" (Document). United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  17. Mears, Bill (January 31, 2011). "Federal judge tosses out sweeping health care reform act". CNN.
  18. ^ Aizenmand, N.C.; Goldstein, Amy (February 1, 2011). "Judge strikes down entire new health-care law". The Washington Post.
  19. "Florida, 25 Other States, and the NFIB". Health Care Lawsuits.
  20. "Certiorari Granted for Docket No. 11-393 & portions of Nos. 11-398 & 11-400" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  21. "Docket No. 11-398, Department of Health and Human Services, v. Florida, Question #1" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  22. "Docket No. 11-400, Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, Question #3" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  23. "Docket No. 11-393, National Federation of Independent Business, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Question #1" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  24. "Docket No. 11-400, Florida, v. Department of Health and Human Services, Question #1" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  25. "Docket No. 11-398, Department of Health and Human Services, v. Florida, Question #2" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  26. "Monthly Argument Calendar (March 2012)". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
  27. "Filings in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved December 8, 2011.
  28. Mark Blumenthal. Huffington Post, Huffpost Pollster, (March 27, 2012). Obamacare Polls Show Little Change Since Reform's Passage
  29. Peter Woolley and Bruce Peabody. Huffington Post, Huffpost Pollster, (March 26, 2012). The American Public as Jurists
  30. ^ Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind, (March 20, 2012). Health Insurance: Can They Or Can't They?

External links

Categories:
Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services: Difference between revisions Add topic