Virginia judge deems healthcare reform 'unconstitutional'

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson declared Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) unconstitutional Dec. 13, in a lawsuit pitting Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy health insurance.

The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (Section 1501 of PPACA) requires that every U.S. citizen, other than those falling within specified exceptions, maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage for each month beginning in 2014. Failure to comply will result in a penalty included with the taxpayer’s annual return.

“On careful review, this [c]ourt must conclude that Section 1501 of the PPACA – specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision – exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power,” wrote Hudson in a memorandum opinion.

The Virginia case is just one case questioning the constitutionality of PPACA. Another lawsuit, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, involves 20 states questioning PPACA's constitutionality via the Commerce Clause.

“I am pleased to see Judge Hudson’s order finding the individual mandate to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s powers," McCollum wrote in a statement after Hudson's ruling was announced. "While Judge Hudson struck the individual mandate, the lawsuit brought by 20 states before Judge [Roger Vinson, U.S. district judge] in Pensacola, Fla., challenges both the individual mandate and the costly Medicaid portions of the federal healthcare act."

Hudson stated that the court is not persuaded that the placement of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision in the Internal Revenue Code under “miscellaneous excise taxes” has the significance claimed by Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius.

“The Internal Revenue Code itself clearly states that such placement does not give rise to any inference or presumption that the exaction was intended to be a tax. Given the anomalous nature of this [p]rovision, it is equally plausible that Congress simply docked the [p]rovision in a convenient harbor," he wrote. “The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.

"At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance--or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage--it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” concluded Hudson.

In the memorandum opinion paper, Hudson granted Cuccinelli’s motion for summary judgment and denied HHS’s similar motion. “The Court will sever Section 1501 from the balance of the PPACA and deny plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.”

To read the full memorandum opinion, click here.