State v. United States Dep't of Health

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
• Writing for the Court: West Codenotes
• Citation: State v. United States Dep't of Health, 780 F.Supp.2d 1256, 107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011, 2011 USTC P 50193, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 535 (N.D. Fla. 2011)
• Decision Date: 31 January 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:10–cv–91–RV/EMT.
• Parties: State of FLORIDA, by and through Attorney General Pam BONDI, et al., Plaintiffs,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

780 F.Supp.2d 1256

107 A.F.T.R.2d 2011-724

2011-1 USTC P 50,193

22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 535

State of FLORIDA, by and through Attorney General Pam BONDI, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:10–cv–91–RV/EMT.

United States District Court, N.D. Florida,Pensacola Division.

Jan. 31, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWest CodenotesHeld Unconstitutional42 U.S.C.A. § 18091.Held Unconstitutional as Not Severable5 U.S.C.A. § 552a; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 24, 207, 1347, 1510; 20 U.S.C.A. § 1078-11; 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 343, 343-1, 355, 355a, 355c, 379g, 399b; 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601, 1602, 1603, 1615, 1616 l, 1616p, 1616q, 1616r, 1621, 1621a, 1621c, 1621d, 1621e, 1621f, 1621h, 1621j, 1621k, 1621 l, 1621m, 1621 o, 1621p, 1621q, 1621t, 1621u, 1621v, 1621w, 1621y, 1623, 1631, 1637, 1638a, 1638b, 1638e, 1638f, 1638g, 1641, 1642, 1644, 1645, 1647, 1647a, 1647b, 1647c, 1647d, 1652, 1659, 1660b, 1660d, 1660e, 1660f, 1660g, 1660h, 1661, 1663, 1663a, 1665, 1665a, 1665b, 1665c, 1665d, 1665e, 1665f, 1665g, 1665h, 1665i, 1665j, 1665k, 1665 l, 1665m, 1665n, 1667, 1667a, 1667b, 1667c, 1667d, 1667e, 1675, 1676, 1678, 1678a, 1679, 1680b, 1680c, 1680k, 1680 l, 1680 o, 1680p, 1680q, 1680r, 1680s, 1680t, 1680u, 1680v; 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 23, 24, 25, 25A, 25B, 26, 30, 30B, 30D, 36B, 36C, 38, 45R, 46, 48D, 49, 56, 106, 108, 125, 137, 139A, 139D, 162, 164, 196, 213, 220, 223, 280C, 501, 833, 904, 1016, 1400C, 1401, 1402, 3101, 3102, 4375, 4376, 4377, 4958, 4959, 4980H, 4980I, 5000A, 5000B, 6033, 6041, 6051, 6055, 6056, 6103, 6211, 6724, 7213, 9511, 9815; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201; 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 207, 218a, 218b, 218c, 794f, 1021, 1131, 1134, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1185d; 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 921, 932; 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 1324, 3730; 35 U.S.C.A. 271; 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 204, 233, 237a, 242s, 244, 247b, 247b-9a, 247b-14, 254b, 254b-1, 254b-2, 254c-1a, 254d, 254j, 254 l-1, 254m, 254q, 256a, 256a-1, 256b, 256g-1, 256h, 256i, 262, 280g-7, 280g-8, 280g-10, 280g-11, 280g-12, 280g-13, 280g-14, 280g-15, 280h-4, 280h-5, 280j, 280j-1, 280j-2, 280j-3, 280k, 280k-1, 280k-2, 280k-3, 280m, 281, 282, 282d, 284m, 284q, 285b-8, 285t, 285t-1, 285t-2, 285t-3, 287c-31, 287c-32, 287c-33, 287c-34, 287d, 289g-4, 290b, 290aa, 290bb-33, 290bb-42, 292s, 293, 293b, 293d, 293e, 293k, 293k-1, 293k-2, 293 l, 293 l-1, 293m,294a, 294b, 294c, 294e-1, 294f, 294g, 294i, 294j, 294n, 294 o, 294q, 294r, 295, 295c, 295e, 295f, 295f-1, 295f-2, 295f-3, 295j, 295p, 296, 296e-1, 296g, 296j, 296j-1, 296m, 296p, 296p-1, 297a, 297b, 297d, 297e, 297g, 297i, 297n, 297n-1, 297 o, 297t, 297w, 297x, 298, 298d, 299a-1, 299b-4, 299b-24a, 299b-25, 299b-26, 299b-31, 299b-33, 299b-34, 299b-35, 299b-36, 299b-37, 299c, 299c-1, 299c-2, 299c-3, 299c-4, 299c-5, 299c-6, 299c-7, 300d-5, 300d-6, 300d-32, 300d-41, 300d-42, 300d-43, 300d-44, 300d-45, 300d-46, 300d-81, 300d-82, 300u-6, 300u-6a, 300u-10, 300u-11, 300u-12, 300u-13, 300u-14, 300u-15, 300w-9, 300gg, 300gg-1, 300gg-2, 300gg-3, 300gg-4, 300gg-5, 300gg-6, 300gg-7, 300gg-8, 300gg-9, 300gg-11, 300gg-12, 300gg-13, 300gg-14, 300gg-15, 300gg-15a, 300gg-16, 300gg-17, 300gg-18, 300gg-19,300gg-19a, 300gg-21, 300gg-22, 300gg-23, 300gg-25, 300gg-26, 300gg-27, 300gg-28, 300gg-62, 300gg-91, 300gg-93, 300gg-94, 300gg-95, 300hh-31, 300jj-51, 300kk, 300 ll, 300 ll-1, 300 ll-2, 300 ll-3, 300 ll-4, 300 ll-5, 300 ll-6, 300 ll-7, 300 ll-8, 300 ll-9, 405, 602, 604, 622, 671, 672, 673, 675, 677, 701, 710, 711, 712, 713, 914, 1308, 1315, 1315a, 1315b, 1320a-3, 1320a-7, 1320a-7a, 1320a-7b, 1320a-7c, 1320a-7e, 1320a-7h, 1320a-7i, 1320a-7j, 1320a-7k, 1320a-7 l, 1320b-9, 1320b-9a, 1320b-9b, 1320b-23, 1320b-25, 1320d, 1320d-2, 1320e, 1320e-1, 1320e-2, 1395, 1395b-6, 1395f, 1395i, 1395i-3, 1395i-3a, 1395i-4, 1395 l, 1395m, 1395n, 1395p,1395r, 1395t, 1395u, 1395w-3, 1395w-3a, 1395w-4, 1395w-5, 1395w-21, 1395w-22, 1395w-23, 1395w-24, 1395w-27a, 1395w-28, 1395w-29, 1395w-101, 1395w-102, 1395w-104, 1395w-111, 1395w-113, 1395w-114, 1395w-114a, 1395w-115, 1395w-153, 1395w-154, 1395x, 1395y, 1395cc, 1395cc-3, 1395cc-4, 1395cc-5, 1395kk, 1395mm, 1395nn, 1395qq, 1395rr, 1395rr-1, 1395ss, 1395ww, 1395yy, 1395aaa, 1395aaa-1, 1395ddd, 1395eee, 1395fff, 1395iii, 1395jjj, 1395kkk,1395kkk-1, 1396, 1396a, 1396b, 1396b-1, 1396d, 1396e, 1396e-1, 1396n, 1396 o, 1396 o-1, 1396r, 1396r-1, 1396r-1c, 1396r-2, 1396r-4, 1396r-8, 1396u-6, 1396u-7, 1396w-1, 1396w-3, 1396w-4, 1396w-5, 1397, 1397a, 1397c, 1397d, 1397e, 1397g, 1397h, 1397j, 1397j-1, 1397k, 1397k-1, 1397k-2, 1397k-3, 1397 l, 1397m, 1397m-1, 1397m-2, 1397m-3, 1397m-4, 1397m-5, 1397bb, 1397dd, 1397ee, 1397gg, 1397hh, 1397ii, 1397jj, 1397mm, 1997a-1, 2391, 2391-1, 2391-2, 2391-3, 2801, 2801-1, 2801-2, 2801-3, 11705, 11706, 11709, 11711, 18001, 18002, 18003, 18011, 18012,18013, 18021, 18022, 18023, 18024, 18031, 18032, 18033, 18041, 18042, 18043, 18044, 18051, 18052, 18053, 18054, 18061, 18062, 18063, 18071, 18081, 18082, 18083, 18084, 18092, 18101, 18111, 18112, 18113, 18114, 18115, 18116, 18117, 18118, 18119, 18120, 18201, 18202, 18203, 18204 Blaine H. Winship, Special Counsel, Joseph W. Jacquot, Deputy Attorney General, Scott D. Makar, Solicitor General, Louis F. Hubener, Timothy D. Osterhaus, Deputy Solicitors General, Office of the Attorney General of Florida, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff States.David B. Rivkin, Lee A. Casey, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff States, National Federation of Independent Business, Mary Brown, and Kaj Ahlburg.Katherine J. Spohn, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff the State of Nebraska.Brian G. Kennedy, Eric B. Beckenhauer, U.S. Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.Elizabeth Bonnie Wydra, Constitutional Accountability Center, Hans Frank Bader, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Kenneth Alan Klukowski, Family Research Council, Richard Lawrence Rosen, Arnold & Porter LLP, Ian Ross Millhiser, Center for American Progress, Carrie Lynn Severino, Judicial Crisis Network, Joseph Eric Sandler, Sandler Reiff and Young, Washington, DC, Keith Scott Dubanevich, Oregon Dept of Justice, Salem, OR, Aleksas Andrius Barauskas, Johnson Pope Bokor etc., Tampa, FL, Edward Lawrence White, III, American Center for Law and Justice, Ann Arbor, MI, Sarah Somers, National Health Law Program, Carrboro NC, George E. Tragos, The Law Offices of Tragos and Sartes, Clearwater FL, Paolo G. Annino, Paolo Annino PA, Tallahassee FL, for Amicus.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROGER VINSON, Senior District Judge.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed health care reform legislation: “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Pub. L. No. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (the “Act”).

This case, challenging the Constitutionality of the Act, was filed minutes after the President signed. It has been brought by the Attorneys General and/or Governors of twenty-six states (the “state plaintiffs”) ¹; two private citizens (the “individual plaintiffs”); and the National Federation of Independent Business (“NFIB”) (collectively, the “plaintiffs”). The defendants are the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, and their secretaries (collectively, the “defendants”). I emphasized once before, but it bears repeating again: this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government.

James Madison, the chief architect of our federalist system, once famously observed:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The Federalist No. 51, at 348 (N.Y. Heritage Press ed., 1945) (“ The Federalist ”).²

In establishing our government, the Founders endeavored to resolve Madison's identified “great difficulty” by creating a system of dual sovereignty under which “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 311 (Madison); see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 (setting forth the specific legislative powers “herein granted” to Congress). When the Bill of Rights was later added to the Constitution in 1791, the Tenth Amendment reaffirmed that relationship: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Framers believed that limiting federal power, and allowing the “residual” power to remain in the hands of the states (and of the people), would help “ensure protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.” See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (citation omitted). Very early, the great Chief Justice John Marshall noted “that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). Over two centuries later, this delicate balancing act continues. Rather than being the mere historic relic of a bygone era, the principle behind a central government with limited power has “never been more relevant than in this day, when accretion, if not actual accession, of power to the...