Five more states join AG suit against healthcare reform
 |
In total, there are 19 states who are filing suits against the new healthcare law—18 of which are part of the Florida suit. The Virginia AG filed a separate lawsuit, due to specific state laws related to health insurance coverage.
McCollum’s suit, filed in the federal court’s Northern District of Florida on March 23, alleges the law infringes upon the constitutional rights of state residents by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty. “By imposing such a mandate, the law exceeds the powers of the U.S. under Article I of the Constitution. Additionally, the tax penalty required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution,” according to McCollum.
The lawsuit further claims the healthcare reform law infringes on the sovereignty of the states and 10th Amendment to the Constitution by imposing onerous new operating rules that states must follow as well as requiring the state to spend billions of additional dollars without providing funds or resources to meet the state's cost of implementing the law.
“Even the supporters of the legislation concede it contains serious flaws. This lawsuit will test the most objectionable of those flaws, the so-called individual mandate,” said North Dakota AG Wayne Stenehjem, who announced joining the suit on April 5 to challenge the “constitutionality of the recently enacted federal healthcare law.”
The individual mandate requires nearly every citizen to purchase a qualified health insurance policy or face a penalty enforced through the Internal Revenue Service. By 2016, an adult who does not have health insurance would be penalized $695 per year, and a family up to $2,085, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, Stenehjem explained. Proponents claim that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress authority to regulate commerce among the states, gives the federal government authority to require every citizen to purchase health insurance.
“The U.S. Constitution grants enumerated and limited authority to the federal government. It may only act in areas that are specifically permitted. In enacting this legislation, Congress stretches its authority under the commerce clause beyond the limit,” Stenehjem said. “The individual mandate in the healthcare law is unprecedented—a direct federal requirement for an individual to purchase insurance from a private company.”
Indiana AG Greg Zoeller said, “It is in the best interests of all…to raise the constitutional questions to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the federal government imposes unprecedented legal obligations of this magnitude on state government, it is my obligation as Attorney General to join and participate in challenging the constitutionality of the bill."
Gibbons signed an executive order naming Mark Hutchison from Las Vegas law firm, Hutchison & Steffen, as special legal counsel to the governor to handle this legal effort. The lawyers working on this matter on behalf of the Nevada have agreed to work for the good of the public without compensation, according to Gibbons.
“I was disappointed that the Attorney General of Nevada refused to fight for the constitutional rights of Nevada citizens,” Gibbons said, “But I refuse to surrender on this issue, we must not allow the federal government to intrude into the lives of Nevadans this way.”
South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota had previously joined Florida’s lawsuit. A scheduling hearing is set for April 14 at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Fla.