US appeals court upholds Obama health care law

CINCINNATI (AP) — In the first ruling by a federal appeals court on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, a panel in Cincinnati handed the administration a victory Wednesday by agreeing that the government can require a minimum amount of insurance for Americans.

A Republican-appointed judge joined with a Democratic appointee for the 2-1 majority in another milestone for Obama’s hotly debated signature domestic initiative — the first time a Republican federal court appointee has affirmed the merits of the law.

The White House and Justice Department hailed the panel’s affirmation of an earlier ruling by a federal court in Michigan; opponents of the law said challenges will continue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue is a conservative law center’s lawsuit arguing on behalf of plaintiffs that potentially requiring them to buy insurance or face penalties could subject them to financial hardship. The suit warns that the law is too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.

The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.

White House adviser Stephanie Cutter called the ruling “another victory” for millions of Americans and small businesses benefiting from the overhaul.

“At the end of the day, we are confident the constitutionality of these landmark reforms will be upheld,” she said in a statement.

The law center predicted its case would have a good shot on appeal.

“Clearly our case won’t resolve all the issues, because we don’t raise the state rights issue, but we are the only one that is currently ripe for Supreme Court review that raises the challenge on behalf of an individual,” said David Yerushalmi, an attorney for the law center.

The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a lengthy opinion with disagreement on some issues, moving unusually quickly in delivering its decision less than a month after hearing oral arguments.

“Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act’s larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance,” Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority.

A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.

“If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’ Commerce Clause authority would be,” warned dissenting Judge James Graham of Columbus. “What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?”

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the Bush appointee, delivered the decisive vote, although his opinion raised questions and noted the unusual nature of a law directed at someone who chooses inaction, referring to those “who prize that most American of freedoms: to be left alone.”

But the government argued that telling someone to buy health insurance, something that virtually everyone needs and is part of a sweeping effort, isn’t the same as ordering them to buy a car or a vegetable.

“The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far, but it also may offer one more example of a policy necessity giving birth to an inventive (and constitutional) congressional solution,” Sutton wrote.

The opinion by Sutton, a well-respected conservative jurist, will be studied closely by other courts, said a law professor at Virginia’s University of Richmond.

“His opinion is comprehensive and cautious and careful, but I think it comes out to pretty much the same conclusion as Judge Martin’s,” Carl Tobias said in a telephone interview.

An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 16-seat 6th Circuit has one vacancy.

Among those supporting the center in court documents in the case — titled Thomas More Law Center, et al, vs. Barack Hussein Obama, et al — were Republican presidential candidates Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul and several other members of Congress including Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio.

More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues such as states’ rights. Earlier decisions at the U.S. district court level have found Republican-appointed judges opposing and Democrat-appointed judges affirming.


Associated Press writers Lisa Cornwell in Cincinnati and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.


Dan Sewell can be reached at

  • TreasonUS

    Does reading the news lead you to believe you actually know what’s going on in America? Here are 5 things you’re most likely wrong about.

    You never heard of Sarah Palin before she was announced as McCain’s running mate. If you believe that her name is really Sarah Palin, you’re wrong.

    Palin and McCain said they were going to reform Washington. If you think they were going to do this by getting elected, you’re wrong.

    Obama disappeared for 2 weeks after winning the election only to reappear looking exhausted sitting next to a John McCain, with a bad poker face, for a press photo shoot. If you believe Obama has free will and the feds aren’t writing his teleprompter, you’re wrong.

    If you believe that we caught Bin Laden immediately following the release of Obama’s birth certificate, you’re wrong.

    If you believe that the feds haven’t recruited editors, journalists, and moderators, to write the headlines and control the commenting on major news sites in an effort to suppress this information, you’re wrong.

    The fourth of July is quickly approaching. If you love our country and want to live in a free democratic society, do not hesitate to share the following story. Share it with others at websites such as; Mediaite, Politico, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, The Daily Caller, Raw Story, The Blaze, Time, and all other major media websites.

    This is what our federal government doesn’t want leaking out

  • redbankrick

    Realistically Obummer could be reelected; & if he has coat tails drag in Madame I Can’t Feel My Face again as Speaker..therefore our best hope is in the lawsuits….consider joining in on the only all citizens challenge to Obama Castro Care:

  • BigRmv

    So let’s see, the government is broke but we can make people “buy” minimum insurance (even ‘tho we said they could keep theirs if they liked it, wink, wink), so why don’t we set that fee at $20,000 per adult and balance the budget under the auspices of Health Care for All?

    I want to see the mandate that says the illegals have to pay their share. I’ll bet Obama is the first to say, “that wouldn’t be nice.”

  • tinteardrop

    “The novelty of the individual mandate may indeed suggest it is a bridge too far…Sutton wrote.”

    Ya think? The little here we get to see of this knothead’s opinion indicates that it’s not particularly scholarly. That’s OK it’s good to have ill structured arguments on the books to refute.

  • mcl2177

    What if the state suing the Fed lose but still refuse to implement it. 26 states have joined the law suit and a few others have filed briefs supporting the them. It is upwards of 30 states. 30 states united is bigger than the federal government. There should be a movement to get them to refuse to implement the law no matter what.

  • Realist4U

    “We The People” will not accept this egregious theft of power by the Government. Every person in Government will be held accountable whether they are Democrat or Republican. The game of musical chairs is over. The music has stopped. Time to remove some chairs.

  • tdogco

    No guts to stand against their dark skinned leader. Pathetic.

  • Liberalsareblind

    So what? None of the decisions made by these lower courts mean anything. Only the decision of the Supreme Court will matter. Right now this giant circuit of courts is nothing but a waste of taxpayer money and time.

    • Sandy E

      According to VA Atty Gen. Cuccinelli, who has been fighting Obamacare here in VA, the Supreme Court prefers to let a case such as this “percolate” up through the court system, from the lower courts to the Appeals courts, before they will take the case. I don’t remember where we are with wins and loses for our side right now, but the decisions of the Appeals courts deciding on the rulings of both VA Judge Hudson’s ruling, and the FL Judge Vinson ruling will be critical. If Obama wins on both those rulings, in addition to his win today, there is a danger that the Supreme Court may not take the case at all, as all or most Appealate decisions will be in favor of Obamacare. Elections have consequences folks!

  • mcl2177

    What is minimum insurance? There is nothing minimal about the healthcare law,