On January 31, 2011, a United States District Court in Florida held that the individual mandate provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The court also held that “[b]ecause the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” The court reasoned that “[i]f [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting\u2014as was done in the Act\u2014that compelling the actual transaction is itself ‘commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce’ . . . it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.” In concluding its decision, the court emphasized that the ruling only addressed a constitutional issue and that it was not about whether the Act was good or bad legislation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This lawsuit was brought by the attorneys general and\/or governors from 26 states, two private citizens and the National Federation of Independent Business. Please see the decision<\/a> for additional information about the lawsuit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On January 31, 2011, a United States District Court in Florida held that the individual mandate provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The court also held that “[b]ecause the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not … <\/p>\n