The constitutionality of health care reform has been challenged in a number of cases to date. Of the cases decided on the merits, the primary focus has been the “individual purchase requirement,” which has also been called the “individual mandate”– the requirement that every U.S. citizen, other than those falling within certain specified exceptions (primarily on religious grounds), maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage beginning in 2014 or pay a penalty as part of the individual’s tax return.
We previously reported on some of the key developments in this litigation. They include Virginia District Judge Henry Hudson’s finding the individual mandate unconstitutional, but severable, a decision later expanded in the Northern District of Florida finding the individual mandate unconstitutional and not severable from the PPACA and followed by Virginia’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the “individual mandate” provision unconstitutional. We also surveyed the three rulings in favor of the constitutionality of the provision.
One of our colleagues, Paul Heiring, has written a health care reform litigation review examining the current legal challenges to the PPACA and a companion piece offering an in-depth discussion of the constitutional clauses invoked in these challenges.