Federal Court Victories for Health Care Law Draw Muted Media Attention

The two federal court opinions striking the landmark health care law, the Affordable Care Act, drew widespread, often front-page coverage. In late January when U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the health care law was unconstitutional The New York Times reported it on page A1. Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court of the Easter District of Richmond also ruled against the health care law's constitutionality, and in mid-December The Times covered his opinion with a front-page article.

But similar notice has not greeted the federal court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the law. Indeed yesterday's opinion by Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia garnered notice from The Times on page A14. Kessler's decision is the third federal court opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It is possible that the Virginia and Florida cases have attracted high-profile attention because numerous states have joined or are supporting those legal actions. At the moment the landmark law has been found constitutional by more judges. Indeed Judge Vinson's opinion, though garnering high-profile media attention, was widely panned for its outcome and legal analysis.

In her 64-page opinion in Mead v. Holder, Judge Kessler rejected the constitutional challenges in a lawsuit lodged by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a Religious Right legal group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. The ACLJ is representing a group of plaintiffs claiming that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact the individual responsibility provision, which requires some Americans to maintain health care insurance starting in 2014. The Associated Press noted that three of the plaintiffs describe themselves as Christians who plan to never purchase health care insurance because they are confident God will heal any aliments that befall them.

Kessler found that the individual responsibility provision was well within Congress's power to regulate commerce. Kessler wrote, "It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality." Talking Points Memo provides access to Kessler's full opinion here.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler lauded Kessler's opinion, saying "This court found - as two others have previously - that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable measure for Congress to take in reforming our health care system."

Last year U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon of the Western District of Virginia, and U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, also upheld the constitutionality of the individual responsibility provision of the health care law.

See an ACS video debate here between Simon Lazarus, author of the ACS Issue Brief detailing the attacks on the health care law, and George Mason University professor Ilya Somin. Both will participate in a panel discussion on the legal challenges to the health care law at a March 3 event featuring a keynote address by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.