Another federal judge ruled against the health care reform bill—in the same circuit as the now-pending comprehensive New Jersey case.

The latest health care reform bill case

The James A. Byrne Federal Courthouse, Philadelphia, PA, home of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. More than one health care reform bill case is on appeal here. Photo: US Department of Justice

The case of Goudy-Bachman & Bachman v. Sebelius & Geithner is a straight down-the-line Commerce Clause case. The plaintiffs, a married couple in York County, PA, dropped their health-insurance coverage. They did this because the premiums were higher than their mortgage payments. Any other health problems that they have had, they have paid for out-of-pocket. They would rather do it that way. But under the health care reform bill, they mayn’t. (See this report in The Philadelphia Inquirer.)

They sued in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. There, Judge Christopher C. Conner found yesterday for the plaintiffs. He had earlier ruled that the Bachmans had standing to sue. Now, in his fifty-two-page ruling, he says that the Commerce Clause does not allow Congress to force any citizen to buy a product or service that he does not want.

The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers[.]…Congress’ efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.

Furthermore, Conner found that Congress also exceeded its authority in telling insurers that they must not “discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.”

How this affects the New Jersey case

The Bachman case is in the same circuit (the Third) as the case of Purpura v. Sebelius. That case is now before the Third Circuit—and will get a three-judge hearing tomorrow—on the question of standing. Judge Conner held in January that the Bachmans, as individuals, have standing to challenge the “individual mandate.” He said again yesterday that whether the mandate was a fine or a tax does not matter. The Anti-Injunction Act does stop a court from enjoining a tax before someone has actually paid it and then asks for his money back. Or so it seems. Judge Conner is not so sure about that:

In Liberty University, Inc., the court concluded that it lacked standing to address individual challenges to the minimum coverage provision after finding that the individual mandate constituted a tax within the meaning of the Anti-Injunction Act, therefore barring pre-enforcement action. Liberty Univ., Inc., — F.3d —, 2011 WL 3962915. I am not persuaded by the analysis set forth in Liberty University, Inc. and reaffirm my conclusion on the non-applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act, as set forth in the prior opinion. See Goudy-Bachman, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 694-97.

Featured image: the Constitution of the United States. Photo: National Archives

Related:

• Opposition brief
• Revised motion
• Legal confusion
• Frustration
• More motions
• Recusal motion
• Default motion
• Appeal skirmish
• Commerce, health care, and distortion
• Plaintiffs seek injunction
• Appeal delayed
• Plaintiffs have standing after all
• DOJ wants more time on HCR appeal
• Another appeal
• Hazardous to your health
• Court dismissal

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]