Filed Under:

Federal Court Rejects Two Challenges To Health Law

Play associated audio

In a win for the administration, a federal appeals court in Virginia tossed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the sweeping law overhauling the health care system.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed cases brought by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli and Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

So, it's a victory, yes, but the judges didn't get down to the nub of the matter: Is the law's requirement that people get health coverage or pay a penalty constitutional? Ultimately, the Supreme Court is going to have sort that out.

Nevertheless, the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, is the second of three federal appeals courts to turn back challenges to the law. The 6th Circuit in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the law in June. A panel of the 11th Circuit in Atlanta heard the appeal of a lower court ruling against the constitutionality of the mandate and largely agreed with it, dealing a blow to the administration.

Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli had argued that the insurance mandate violated a state law prohibiting such a requirement on Virginians. The 4th Circuit panel didn't buy it, writing, in part, "the mere existence of a state law like [Virginia's] does not license a state to mount a judicial challenge to any federal statute with which the state law assertedly conflicts." (Read the full decision here.) The three judges unanimously ruled against Virginia.

In the case brought by Liberty University, the two of three judges on the panel agree that the penalty for those who don't have health insurance constitutes a tax. That means lawsuits filed in advance of its collection are barred by a separate federal law. They're the first judges at any level to accept that argument, which the Obama administration has been making from the start.

"We have three different courts of appeals issuing three different ruling on three different bases," says Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown and attorney for the National Federation of Independent Business, which opposes the law. "One of which held the statute was unconstitutional, one of which held that it was constitutional, and one of which held that the federal court lacks jurisdiction to figure out whether it's constitutional or not. If that doesn't cry out for Supreme Court resolution, I don't know what does," he tells NPR's Julie Rovner.

Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

NPR

Lisa Lucas Takes The Reins At The National Book Foundation

Lucas is the third executive director in the history of the foundation, which runs the National Book Awards. Her priority? Inclusivity: "Everyone is either a reader or a potential reader," she says.
NPR

The Shocking Truth About America's Ethanol Law: It Doesn't Matter (For Now)

Ted Cruz doesn't like the law that requires the use of ethanol in gasoline. So what would happen if it was abolished? The surprising answer: not much, probably.
WAMU 88.5

The Latest on the Military, Political and Humanitarian Crises in Syria

Russia continues airstrikes in Syria. Secretary Kerry meets with world leaders in an attempt to resolve the country’s five-year civil war. A panel joins Diane to discuss the latest on the military, political and humanitarian crises facing Syria.

NPR

Twitter Tries A New Kind Of Timeline By Predicting What May Interest You

Twitter has struggled to attract new users. Its latest effort at rejuvenation is a new kind of timeline that predicts which older posts you might not want to miss and displays them on top.

Leave a Comment

Help keep the conversation civil. Please refer to our Terms of Use and Code of Conduct before posting your comments.