Obamacare struck down as Unconstitutional

[Logan Darklighter]

posted at 1:22 pm on March 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air

A mild surprise here,
as Judge Roger Vinson’s earlier ruling seemed fairly categorical.  If a
law is unconstitutional, then implementation should be abandoned, and
Vinson’s ruling suggested that no further clarification would be
necessary.  In his stay, Vinson now appears to press for an expedited Supreme Court review:

In his ruling, Vinson repeated what he has said
previously — that “the citizens of this country have an interest in
having this case resolved as soon as practically possible.”

“That was nearly eleven months ago,” he wrote. “In the time since,
the battle lines have been drawn, the relevant case law marshaled, and
the legal arguments refined. Almost everyone agrees that the
constitutionality of the Act is an issue that will ultimately have to be
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very important
to everyone in this country that this case move forward.”

And in fact, the stay in this case is only good for seven days, and
is predicated on the Obama administration filing an application for expedited appeal, either with the appeals court or the Supreme Court:

After careful consideration of the factors noted above,
and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I
find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.
However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their
anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and
seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or
with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court.

Otherwise, Vinson ruled, his original ruling has an immediate
injunctive effect that nullifies the entirety of the ObamaCare law.  He
also expressed no small amount of derision for the respondents’ argument
to the contrary:

So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual
mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential”
provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire
legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be
treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction”
with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was
based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves
identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory
judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the
extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were
unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a
stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments
for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard
procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the
order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to
implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”6

Furthermore, Vinson goes right up to the edge of accusing the Obama administration of lying to the court:

The defendants have suggested, for example, that my order
and judgment could not have been intended to have the full force of an
injunction because, if I had so intended, I would have been “required to
apply the familiar four-factor test” to determine if injunctive relief
was appropriate. …

I did not undertake this four-factor analysis for a simple reason: it
was not necessary. Even though the defendants had technically disputed
that the plaintiffs could satisfy those four factors, the defendants had
acknowledged in their summary judgment opposition brief that, if I were
to find for the plaintiffs, separate injunctive relief would be
superfluous and unnecessary. The defendants expressly assured the court
that, in light of the “long-standing presumption that a declaratory
judgment provides adequate relief as against an executive officer, as it
will not be presumed that that officer will ignore the judgment of the
Court,” any declaratory judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor “would [ ] be
adequate to vindicate [the plaintiffs’] claims.” Defendants’ Memorandum
in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for  summary Judgment (doc. 137), at
43. Consequently, there was no need to discuss and apply the
four-factor test to determine if injunctive relief was appropriate
because the defendants had confirmed that they would “not . . . ignore
the judgment of the Court” and that my “declaratory judgment would [ ]
be adequate.” In other words, the defendants are now claiming that it is
somehow confusing that I bypassed the four-factor test and applied the
“long-standing presumption” that they themselves had identified and
specifically insisted that they would honor.

Basically, this forces the Department of Justice to expedite the
appeals process, which they were clearly hoping to avoid.  The dilatory
tactics that Vinson blasts in this ruling almost certainly won’t impress
the appellate court, either.  Furthermore, the order forces the Obama
administration to fight on Vinson’s ruling first and now rather than
wait for a more friendly set of rulings and hope to marginalize Vinson
down the road.

The White House asked for a clarification.  They got a trip to the
woodshed instead, and a very short time frame to stop the halt to
ObamaCare that Vinson’s ruling creates.