Judge Strikes Down Federal Health Law
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, ruling on a suit brought by opponents of the Affordable Care Act, says that the law was invalidated when Congress dropped the tax penalty for not having coverage. Advocates for the law say they will appeal the decision.
The Washington Post:
Federal Judge In Texas Rules Obama Health-Care Law Unconstitutional
A federal judge in Texas threw a dagger on Friday into the Affordable Care Act, ruling that the entire health-care law is unconstitutional because of a recent change in federal tax law. The opinion by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor overturns all of the sprawling law nationwide. The ruling came on the eve of the deadline for Americans to sign up for coverage in the federal insurance exchange created under the law. (Goldstein, 12/14)
Politico:
Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional, Endangering Coverage For 20 Million
A federal judge in Texas late Friday threw the health coverage of some 20 million Americans in limbo by ruling Obamacare must be scrapped because Congress struck the penalty for failing to obtain insurance coverage. The invalidation of the landmark 2010 law is certain to send shock waves through the U.S. health system and Washington after a midterm election seen in part as a rebuke to Republican efforts to tear down Obamacare. (Demko and Cancryn, 12/14)
Bloomberg:
Obamacare Thrown Out By Judge, Raising Insurance Uncertainty
The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes just before the end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place. (Korosec and Mehrota, 12/14)
The Wall Street Journal:
Federal Judge Rules Affordable Care Act Is Unconstitutional Without Insurance-Coverage Penalty
The 16 Democratic attorneys general who have intervened in the case are expected to seek a stay pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could wind up in the Supreme Court. (Armour, 12/14)
CNN:
Federal Judge In Texas Strikes Down Affordable Care Act
"The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid." The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to $0 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill. (de Vogue and Luhby, 12/14)
NBC News:
Federal Judge In Texas Strikes Down Affordable Care Act
"The Individual Mandate can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress's Tax Power and is still impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause — meaning the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional," O'Connor wrote. "The Individual Mandate is essential to and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA." Without the system being upheld by a wide pool of mandated participants, the ACA cannot stand, O'Connor ruled. "Without it, Congress and the Supreme Court have stated, the architectural design fails," according to O'Connor. "It is like watching a slow game of Jenga, each party poking at a different provision to see if the ACA falls." (Li, 12/14)
The New York Times:
Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act As Unconstitutional
A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it. (Goodnough, 12/14)
The Hill:
Federal Judge In Texas Strikes Down ObamaCare
Judge Reed O'Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged that health care is a "politically charged affair — inflaming emotions and testing civility." But he added courts "are not tasked with, nor are they suited to, policymaking." Instead, he said they must determine what the Constitution requires. In this, case O'Connor said the Constitution does not allow the mandate to stand. (Sullivan, 12/14)
