JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 7, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The future of health care reform just became a little more secure, thanks to a federal judge in Detroit.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh issued a ruling in Thomas More Law Center v. Barack Obama. It's one of a dozen lawsuits the opponents of health care reform have filed in federal courts, in an effort to roll back the Affordable Care Act. But it is the first case in which a judge has issued a verdict. And the verdict is pretty much a wholesale win for reform.
The plaintiffs in this case are the Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with some Michigan residents. The focus of their lawsuit is the individual mandate--the requirement, which becomes effective in 2014, that all Americans obtain a "creditable" health insurance policy. ("Creditable" is wonkspeak for a policy that includes basic benefits, as defined by the government.) According to the plaintiffs, the federal government has no right to impose that requirement, since it would compel people to spend money on health insurance instead of some other good.
In response, the Obama Administration has argued the authority to impose the mandate lies in two separate constitutional provisions--one that gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce and one that gives the federal government power to tax for the sake of promoting the general welfare. Steeh basically agreed with both propositions.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'm not really qualified to assess the finer points of Steeh's legal argument. (I'll try to update this item with some more input from people who are.) But the premise of Steeh's legal argument seems to be a notion about policy--that it's not possible to regulate the insurance industry, in a way that would make coverage available to all people, without compelling every person to get coverage. On that count, I would argue, Steeh is correct.
So what does this mean for the repeal movement? My limited understanding, informed by a few casual conversations with some law professors, is that Steeh's decision is consistent with the traditional understanding of the Commerce Clause--that the only way to throw out the mandate would be to reexamine conventional assumptions about the Commerce Clause. That would be a fairly radical move.
But Steeh is a Clinton appointee. As those other suits go forward in other states, culminating perhaps in a Supreme Court case, we're going to hear from some judges who are more conservative--in some cases, a lot more conservative. Radical reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause may be something they're willing to try.
7 comments
It's a great decision. Essentially, the Plaintiff's position was, the mandate violates the Commerce Clause because choosing not to purchase health insurance is not some economic "activity" but rather "inactivity." The government's position was, no, it is governed by the Commerce Clause because whether you by health insurance is an economic "decision." And in any case, the Supreme Court has held numerous times that a refusal to participate in a market can still affect interstate commerce. The Judge aptly brought up Wickard v. Filburn, a case decided in 1942, in which the Supreme Court held that an individual farmer was not allowed to grow wheat for personal consumption because doing so arguably affected the interstate market for wheat and the price controls set by Congress. Same thing with the individual mandate -- individuals still have to get healthcare. Whether it's buying insurance or paying for the service itself, the healthcare is still going to be "purchased." This is about an economic decision on how to pay for the healthcare. Therefore, it falls under the Commerce Clause because it affects interstate commerce, and Congress may regulate it. To put it in a more reality-based context -- Taxpayers have always had to pay for the uninsured. The uninsured are guaranteed services at emergency rooms. Congress has realized this and in an effort to expand services top to bottom, they've regulated how Americans pay for healthcare. Like it or not, it's Constitutional.
- caseykap
October 8, 2010 at 9:35am
- That's embarrassing , "...a conservative public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.". Say what you will about South Bend, when Notre Dame pisses off the right they have to bus the protesters in. We can be thankful those attorneys were incompetent (I wonder were they went for law schooling?).
- michaelg
October 8, 2010 at 9:56am
I think you mean "where".
- caseykap
October 8, 2010 at 9:59am
Michael, that conservative public interest law firm was created and planted in Ann Arbor (my old home town) by Tom Monaghan (my mom's old boss), former CEO of Domino's Pizza and a prolific funder of right-wing causes. Unfortunately for Monaghan, the law school associated with the law firm (also known as Thomas More) has pretty much fallen apart as Monaghan has focused most of his funding on a misbegotten Florida Catholic university venture.
- wildboy
October 8, 2010 at 10:27am
- caseykap wrote, "I think you mean "where"." Nope, my replies include plagiarism traps. It makes it easier to spot theft by copy & paste. I can tell what is mine and what isnot.
- michaelg
October 8, 2010 at 10:32am
- Thanks for the hope shattering wildboy. I thought there was something there to humble the maize and blue...fat chance. (Isn't "conservative public interest" an oxymoron?)
- michaelg
October 8, 2010 at 10:41am
"Conservative public interest" is a euphemism for "conservative legal organization funded by wealthy donors to push their economic interests through the legal system". But that's too much to say in a single press release.
- wildboy
October 8, 2010 at 12:40pm