Part 1 - Medical Expandsion. Looks like the state of Florida could have done a much better job on this part of the case -- the judge actually ruled in favor of HHS (Obama) for this portion of the case.
Part 2A - Individual Mandate (re: the Commerce Clause). This is hugh and series. Two individuals were cited as having sufficient standing to join the lawsuit. Utah and Idaho (at least) also have standing due to anti-Obamacare legislation passed in their respective states. No other states needed to be evaluated (by precedent).
The Judge spent a LOT of pages (~30) discussing the Commerce Clause, its history, case law, and then the possible scenarios. He's concerned over whether ANYTHING might be out of the reach of Congressional regulation if you accept the Gov'ts notion that even NOT participating in the health care industry constitutes "economic activity." Judge asserts that the act of not buying health insurance has ZERO impact on economic activity - unequivocally. The Gov't essentially claims that people inevitably get sick and access the health care system, and thus can be regulated. A liberal judge would no doubt concur with their view, but this judge did not.
Part 2B - the Necessary and Proper Clause. Judge rules that the Gov't overstepped its interpretation of this clause - that it means the Gov't has the power to carry out its mandates; NOT that it can do things outside its Constitutional mandates. Good.
In summary of Part 2 - the Gov't lost both parts 2A and 2B. Part 3 - Severability. Congress included no severability clause; judge interprets this as intentional and that the bill can't stand without the individual mandate. Ruling for the plaintiffs.
Finally - the injunction: because of the absence of severability and the declaration that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, this is IN EFFECT an injunction ruling.
"The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” ..., and “drastic” remedy.... It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption; that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.
"... There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
Thanks for the summary.
Listening to Greta just now, she arrived at your same conclusion --- the judge didn't actually issue an injunction because:
Finally - the injunction: because of the absence of severability and the declaration that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, this is IN EFFECT an injunction ruling.
Thank you again!!!
“He’s concerned over whether ANYTHING might be out of the reach of Congressional regulation if you accept the Gov’ts notion that even NOT participating in the health care industry constitutes “economic activity.””
Contrast SCOTUS case _Raich_, where reducing demand in illegal interstate commerce was deemed to affect interstate commerce therefore the act which reduced the demand could be prohibited by federal law.
Would you like to expound on this a bit? It is not obvious.
I understand the severability issue. But a simple injunction would certainly be appropriate if you are correct. I'm betting that the reason that there is no injunction is because the Judge believed it would have been immediately appealed and overturned pending blah, blah, blah.
Nice job on that. Thanks