Appeals court upholds health-care law’s individual mandate

Judge James Graham, a Republican appointee, dissented, but it was the concurrence of Sutton — a George W. Bush appointee and former law clerk for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — that was most noteworthy.

Sutton wrote that “the government has the better of the arguments” and that “Congress . . . did not exceed its power” in passing the individual mandate. But he also appeared to acknowledge that his word would not be final, writing, “The Supreme Court has considerable discretion in resolving this dispute.”

More on this Story

And in a phrase that heartened conservative opponents of the law, Sutton questioned whether the legislation will have other, perhaps unintended, consequences. “That brings me to the lingering intuition — shared by most Americans, I suspect — that Congress should not be able to compel citizens to buy products they do not want,” he wrote.

“If Congress can require Americans to buy medical insurance today, what of tomorrow? Could it compel individuals to buy health care itself in the form of an annual check-up or for that matter a health-club membership?”

Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the government welcomed the ruling “and its finding that Congress acted within its authority in passing this landmark health-care reform law.” She vowed that the department will continue to “vigorously defend” the law and said department officials believe that efforts to challenge it will fail.

Her words were echoed by a variety of Democrats and supporters of the law.

“Congress clearly has the authority to regulate the health insurance market, including protecting consumers from insurance industry abuses,” said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now. “Every step of the way, the health-care debate has been polluted by partisan politics. Today’s decision, made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, is immune to that criticism.”

No ‘ringing endorsement’

But Rivkin, citing some of the wording in Sutton’s concurrence, said the decision is “not at all a ringing endorsement of the constitutionality of the individual mandate.” And David Yerushalmi, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center, said that while the ruling was “disappointing,” Sutton “essentially kicked this thing upstairs to the Supreme Court.”

Yerushalmi said he is already drafting a petition asking the high court to hear the case, though he acknowledged that the justices will probably “put it aside” until other appellate court decisions are issued.

Two other federal appellate courts — the Richmond-based 4th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta — recently heard oral arguments in lawsuits challenging various aspects of the health-care law’s constitutionality, and they are expected to issue decisions in the coming weeks or months. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for September.

Three U.S. district judges have ruled in favor of the administration on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, while two district court judges have said it is unconstitutional. Those decisions were all along partisan lines, with Democratic-appointed judges supporting the administration and Republican appointees opposing it.

 
Read what others are saying About Badges