A federal district court judge in Richmond, Va., ruled recentlythat Congress cannot require people to buy health insurance–a keyprovision of the health care reform law signed by President BarackObama in March.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said the provision of thehealth care law requiring people to buy insurance in 2014 isunconstitutional because Congress lacked any power to compel anindividual to involuntarily engage in a private commercialtransaction, as contemplated by the "Minimum Essential CoverageProvision."

This provision "is neither within the letter nor the spirit ofthe Constitution," Judge Hudson wrote in a 42-pagedecision.

But the judge declined to support the request of the plaintiff,the attorney general of Virginia, to throw out the law or to imposean injunction barring implementation of the other parts of thelaw.

The attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli II, had asked that thelaw be declared unconstitutional and its implementation stayeduntil ultimate court action.

"Without the benefit of extensive expert testimony andsignificant supplementation of the record, this court cannotdetermine, what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able tosurvive independently," Judge Hudson said.

In a statement, the U.S. Justice Department said it believed itwill ultimately prevail in defending the provision of the law ruledinvalid by Judge Hudson.

In the DOJ statement, Tracy Schmaler, a spokesperson, expresseddisappointment with Judge Hudson's decision but said the departmentcontinues to believe, as other judges in Virginia and Michigan havefound, that the law is constitutional.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent thatCongress acted within its constitutional authority in passing thislaw, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail," shesaid.

Healthcare for America Now, which supports the law, issued astatement noting that 14 federal district court judges haverejected lawsuits seeking to invalidate the new law.

"While the Virginia case is important and has drawn strong mediainterest, it is no more important than the many other rulings byjudges of equal rank who have determined that the law isconstitutional or have issued dismissals on procedural grounds,"the HCAN statement said.

George Patton Jr., an appellate lawyer with Bose, McKinney &Evans in Washington, D.C. and Indianapolis, said, "In my view, thetwo U.S. District Court opinions from across the country upholdingthe federal health care law are better reasoned than this oneopinion from a U.S. District Court in Virginia declaring a singleprovision unconstitutional while severing that portion from therest of the law and denying an injunction."

In his decision, Judge Hudson called the mandate to buyinsurance "an unprecedented expansion of federal power to regulateinterstate trade."

Moreover, he said: "Neither the Supreme Court nor any federalcircuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers tocompel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerceby purchasing a commodity in the private market.

"In doing so, enactment of the minimum essential coverageprovision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress"under Article 1 of the Constitution.

In its statement, HCAN said Judge Hudson has acknowledged thathis decision may have no influence over the final outcome.

"As you well know, this is only one brief stop on the way to theU.S. Supreme Court," Judge Hudson said during oral arguments.

His ruling is certain to be heard by the 4th Circuit U.S. Courtof Appeals.

HCAN said that from the cases already decided, appeals arepending or expected in the 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9th circuits.

The HCAN statement noted a high-profile Florida case joined by20 Republican attorneys general and governors was also set to beargued in Pensacola and that regardless of the outcome, it wouldcertainly be appealed to the 11th circuit.