Florida Challenge to ObamaCare Will Proceed

Federal District Judge Roger Vinson has just refused the federal government’s request to dismiss the ObamaCare challenge filed by Florida and 19 other states. From today’s ruling:

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. As the nonpartisan CBO concluded sixteen years ago (when the individual mandate was considered, but not pursued during the 1994 national healthcare reform efforts): “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” 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.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    Are you serious? Are you serious?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    So, there is a remote possibility that federal government doesn't have absolute control over our lives?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    ...and no, that doesn't not mean I'm a "racist teabagger, straight-up."

  • SFC B||

    Only a true straight-up racist teabagger denies being a racist teabagger, straight-up.

  • Binky||

    So, there is a remote possibility that federal government doesn't have absolute control over our lives?

    Of course! Just as there is a remote possibility that federal government doesn't f*** s****.

  • shrike||

    Hey, this is bullshit. Government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Hayek and Rand would back me up, if they weren't dead.

    You inbred hillbilly Christ-fag Rush-suckers just don't GET it, do you.

  • Chad||


  • MNG||

    I'm guessing these never-ending adolescent "shrike-mocking" posts were meant to caricature shrike's oft nearly adolescent rants. Interesting that...

  • shrike||

    I don't need your help, MNG. You're too far to the right to BE of help to me, anyway.

  • Tony||

    Whatever, as long as gays get more rights, I don't care.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Special pleading, Chony?

  • ||

    The real trolls are annoying enough.

  • Rich||

    Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” and “improper.”

    But, to say that it is "historic" *does*, right?

    Go Gatah!

  • Joe Biden||

    Historic! I meant to say it was a HISTORIC f-cking deal!

  • Wonketteer||

    Are you freaks still standing up for the Oath Keepers?

  • Pip||

    You kids still bending over for Obama?

  • Pogo the Clown||

    Lol! Oh my God, you are SO funny! I will have take time to post at your site sometime soon.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Don't do it out of some deep-seated need to be loved, Pogo.

  • ||

    I don't ever recall hearing a judge say "the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action."

    If I was Solicitor General, I would probably not be nearly as happy with my prospects in this case.

  • ||

    Actually, the solicitor general should want the Court to say--this law is most definitely unconstitutional, and is hereby declared void effective now (weeks before the election), so that the Dems running for re-election can say they will stand by the court's decision, and you tea-partiers need not consider my vote for health care when you go to the ballot box--just look at the new post office and interchange I got built back here.

  • ||

    "Of course, to say that something is “novel” and “unprecedented” does not necessarily mean that it is “unconstitutional” "
    Actually, in light of the ninth and tenth amendments, adding how old the country and the US Constitution is, 200+, yes, "novel" does mean unconstitutional. Where is there an example of something "novel" between the Federal Government and the citzen that is constitutional today?

  • ||

    Obviously, Terry, you are unacquainted with the "living Constitution", for which every day is a new day.

    I think it was Scalia, when asked about the living Constitution, who pulled a copy out of his coat pocket, looked at it, and said "My copy is quite inanimate."

  • ||

    Applying the 2nd amendment against the states was novel and unprecedented.

  • ||

    Only because the courts had pretended that the Second Amendment didn't exist for the 200 years previous.

  • robc||

    Not true, it was neither, as it had the previous application of other amendments as precedent.

    Now, the first time that was done, it might have been novel, but the 14th amendment was novel, so there ya go.

  • Christ opher||

    Don't worry Obama will invoke state secrets in this case and have it tossed. The secret being covered up is how screwed everyone is.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    I wish he hadn't dismissed the 10th amendment argument.

    Otherwise, a good, solid kicking of the can down the road.

  • IceTrey||

    There's no such thing as a federal mandate.

    "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a
    federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that
    prohibition by conscripting the state’s officers directly. The federal government
    may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor
    command the states’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer
    or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is
    involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such
    commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
    sovereignty.” [Printz v. US, USC, 117 (1997)]



Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.