In a split opinion, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the mandate to force individuals to purchase health insurance constitutional, rejecting the appeal in the case of Seven-Sky v. Holder. In a 2-to-1 decision, the judges held that Congress acted within its authority to regulate interstate commerce when it enacted the individual mandate. The dissenting judge argued that the challenge was premature.
The opinion surprised some observers since two of the three justices on the panel were appointed by two Republican Presidents.
The swing decision was put into play by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, who was appointed to the Circuit Court by President Ronald Regan and is regarded by many to be one of the intellectual leaders of the conservatives on the federal bench. His opinion in this case categorically rejected the points challenging the individual mandate. While admitting that the mandate is unprecedented, his majority opinion offers the following comments:
- “Broad regulation is an inherent feature of Congress’s constitutional authority in this area; to regulate complex, nationwide economic problems is to necessarily deal in generalities.”
- "The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.”
- "The health-insurance market is rather a unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health-care services.”
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, contended that the Anti-Injunction Act applied to the case. The federal Anti-Injunction Act provides that no legal action can be taken against a federal tax until the tax is levied, and the tax provisions of the individual mandate do not take effect until 2014. He held that the court can't review the health care mandate until it and the tax penalty written into the Internal Revenue Code takes effect in 2014.
While the D.C. Federal Circuit Court ruling is notable, it is more symbolic in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear these issues (click here to read more). However, the ruling does bear some significance for individual mandate proponents since this is the second federal court with a Republican-appointed judge to vote to uphold the mandate.
The ruling also softened the impact of the election results in Ohio on November 9th, where the citizens voted nearly 2 to 1 to amend their state Constitution to prohibit enforcement of the individual mandate. That vote is also largely symbolic, but PPACA opponents are using the vote in Ohio -- a swing state in the upcoming presidential election – to reinforce their claim that the individual mandate remains highly unpopular with voters.
Ultimately, each of these legal questions will be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court next spring.
We will continue to endeavor to keep you up-to-date on these and other developments in our ever- evolving marketplace. Please visit www.HealthcareExchange.com for blog posts, polls, surveys and numerous resources, or you may visit www.benefitmall.com to view past Legislative Alerts.
