Federal judge: healthcare reform law unconstitutional

A federal judge in Virginia rules unconstitutional the individual mandate provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but denies a motion to halt implementation of the law.

A federal judge in Virginia dealt a setback to President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law, but denied a move to halt the implementation of the measure in the Old Dominion State.

Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which would require most Americans to buy health insurance, is unconstitutional because it exceeds the federal government’s power to oversee interstate commerce (known as the “Commerce Clause”).

But Hudson also denied a motion by plaintiff Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general, to halt implementation of the healthcare reform act pending the appeals process. The individual mandate is slated to go into effect in 2014.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause power to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” Hudson wrote. “Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative healthcare regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds.”

The decision is a major setback for what opponents have termed “Obamacare,” after a Michigan judge dismissed one legal challenge and a Florida judge allowed a legal challenge to proceed.

Recently, Brett Loper, senior vice president and director of government affairs for AdvaMed told MassDevice that challenges to the laws constitutionality may actually force legislators back to the table.

“Court challenges could have such a dramatic change on the law’s operational capacity that Congress is forced to go back in and deal with the law,” Loper said. “External events could force people back to the table.”

And the battle between the states and the feds could intensify, with potentially 30 states opposing the law outright or ’ because they’ll be charged with much of its implementation ’ using their leverage to change aspects of the bill.

“There is going to be a tug of war between more states and the administration,” Loper said. “That could force the Congress to go back in and look at this.”