15 States Sue Over Health Care Law

15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
By: Ashley Freije

Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.

The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.

The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.

It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.

The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.

The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.

However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.

While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.