[D-fendr]

constitutional in the 6th circuit and unconstitutional in the 11th circuit

Are you sure? I didn't think these were, in effect, regional courts but federal - and that one ruling unconstitutional means it's unconstitutional, no matter if all the other circuits rule it constitutional or not.

[nathanbedford]

I do not think that is the case. I think the ruling applies to the area of jurisdiction only.

[Oceander]

Are you sure? I didn't think these were, in effect, regional courts but federal - and that one ruling unconstitutional means it's unconstitutional, no matter if all the other circuits rule it constitutional or not.

I am quite sure. The decisions of one circuit are not binding precedent on any of the other circuits, so a case that arose in the 11th Circuit would not be bound by a decision in the 6th Circuit or vice-versa. See, e.g., Moores Federal Practice - Civil sec. 134.02 (I believe the section citation is correct, but it might be a different number within Moores Federal Practice).

Thus, a person living in the area covered by the 11th Circuit would not be subject to the individual mandate (but would be subject to the rest of the law that wasn't invalidated) whereas a person living in the area covered by the 6th Circuit would be subject to the individual mandate.