DOJ Arguments Against Fla. Ruling Emerge In U.S. District Court Filings
The Department of Justice takes the position that the Florida judge's ruling in which he threw out the health law is "indefensible."
Modern Healthcare: White House Files Arguments Fighting Fla. Ruling
The Obama administration recently targeted each argument underpinning a federal judge's ruling against the 2010 health care overhaul. The federal government specified in its April 1 appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta why a Florida judge's Jan. 31 ruling striking down the law's individual insurance mandate as unconstitutional was inaccurate. Among the key arguments was a response to the lower court's ruling that Congress cannot require people to buy health insurance because it does not have the authority to regulate inactivity. The Obama administration responded that the huge cost of treating the uninsured - estimated at $43 billion in 2008 - impacts interstate commerce, which Congress is authorized to regulate, and imposes costs on others in the market (Daly, 4/4).
CQ HealthBeat: DOJ Says Vinson Ruling On Health Care Law Is 'Indefensible'
The Department of Justice argues in an appeals court brief that a ruling by a Florida judge throwing out the entire health care law is "indefensible." The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute," courts must "try to limit the solution to the problem, severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact," the Department of Justice says, quoting case law, in the brief filed late Friday. The brief is the government's first to be filed in the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where oral arguments in a multistate suit case against the health care law will be heard June 8. Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson earlier this year declared the entire law unconstitutional, and the government appealed (Norman, 4/4).