A federal district court judge in Richmond, Va., ruled recently that Congress cannot require people to buy health insurance–a key provision of the health care reform law signed by President Barack Obama in March.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said the provision of the health care law requiring people to buy insurance in 2014 is unconstitutional because Congress lacked any power to compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction, as contemplated by the "Minimum Essential Coverage Provision."

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

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

The attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli II, had asked that the law be declared unconstitutional and its implementation stayed until ultimate court action.

"Without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record, this court cannot determine, what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently," Judge Hudson said.

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

In the DOJ statement, Tracy Schmaler, a spokesperson, expressed disappointment with Judge Hudson's decision but said the department continues to believe, as other judges in Virginia and Michigan have found, that the law is constitutional.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail," she said.

Healthcare for America Now, which supports the law, issued a statement noting that 14 federal district court judges have rejected lawsuits seeking to invalidate the new law.

"While the Virginia case is important and has drawn strong media interest, it is no more important than the many other rulings by judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional 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, the two U.S. District Court opinions from across the country upholding the federal health care law are better reasoned than this one opinion from a U.S. District Court in Virginia declaring a single provision unconstitutional while severing that portion from the rest of the law and denying an injunction."

In his decision, Judge Hudson called the mandate to buy insurance "an unprecedented expansion of federal power to regulate interstate trade."

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

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

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

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

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

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

The HCAN statement noted a high-profile Florida case joined by 20 Republican attorneys general and governors was also set to be argued in Pensacola and that regardless of the outcome, it would certainly be appealed to the 11th circuit.

Special Reports /

Health Care Law Supporters Downplay Impact Of Va. Court Decision

Related Stories

Recommended For You