More States Sign On to Multi-State Lawsuit Against ObamaCare


Looks like several more states are planning to join the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care law: 

Attorneys general in Kansas, Ohio, Wyoming, and Wisconsin have requested to join the lawsuit filed by 20 other state attorneys general led by Florida attorney general (AG) Bill McCollum against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

The new Republican attorney general for Maine says he is also getting ready to have the state join the Florida-led lawsuit.

I don't know that the addition of more states will make the legal case any stronger. But it will certainly highlight the strength of state-based opposition to the law: If Maine joins the suit, it will mean that fully half of the states will have challenged the law's constitutionality in court. 

Read my feature on ObamaCare and the states here


NEXT: Should Public Health Trump the Bill of Rights?

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.

  1. If Maine joins the suit, it will mean that fully half of the states will have challenged the law’s constitutionality

    No, it means that fully half approve of ObamaCare!

  2. This is why we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

  3. Here we go with that inflammatory rhetoric again. Have these states no shame?


  5. actually it will be over half at 26 – Virginia has its own suit.

  6. aint gonna fly. the GOBP controlled SCOTUS will never overturn the socons right to intrude into bedrooms

    1. did u say god-given right?

    2. SCOTUS has always had a pragmatic side, since they pretty much depend on the consent of others for their rulings to have any teeth. It’s a lesson they learned the hard way under Jackson.

      If the pro-HCR faction of the court worries that allowing ObamaCare to stand would represent an existential threat to the social order that allowed it to be passed in the first place, one or two will flip and make up some rationalization for sacrificing the law. 5-4 ruling, of course.

    3. If you’re not going to make sense, could you at least do it in complete sentences?

    4. How did you make it out of high school without learning how to type?

      1. If he has an unhealthy obsession with a political figure we can probably get him committed.

  7. no u did

    1. no u did

      1. no u did

        1. Allah Akbar!

          1. Me too!

  8. Not your reporting, Suderman, I understand, but Bill McCollum has been replaced by Pam Bondi as Attorney General. She is committed to continuing the suit though.

  9. In the extreme, if you get enough states you get an amendment.

  10. Moving steadily closer to the 75% that we need to drive a stake through the heart of this vampyric piece of totalitarianism!

    It’s going to be very very very hard for the Federal Government to force this upon more than half of the country. They can pass all the laws they want, but if more than half the country laughs at them, then ignores their laws, well, there isn’t a lot the Feds can do at that point…

  11. I read a stat today that said, “Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.”


    If that’s accurate, then it isn’t just that such a large number of the state’s themselves are against the law–it’s their constituencies.

    If Obama and the Senate Democrats want to lose big in 2012 by backing an issue that’s helped propel Democrats to new lows at the grassroots level? Then they should keep doing exactly what they’re doing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.