Judge Rejects Obamacare 'Individual Mandate'

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 2 Comments

Dealing a setback to the Obama administration, a federal judge in Harrisburg has struck down several provisions of the Affordable Care Act after concluding that the law's "individual mandate" is an unconstitutional extension of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • writerinfact

    I continue to be dismayed by the idea that Congress believes it has the authority to require me to purchase something - anything - when I am financially unable to do so. In plain words, I do not have sufficient income to pay for food and housing, let alone such luxuries as soap, toilet paper, and toothpaste. On the other hand, since I do not currently have health insurance, and have not had for quite some time, I'm sure there are preexisting conditions about which I am unaware - or not - which would therefore preclude my obtaining new health insurance, even if I could afford to pay for it. Paradoxical, indeed.

  • Mary Wagner

    I was dismayed to find that the Legal Intelligencer referred to the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare" in the 9/13/2011 headline reporting that a Federal Judge struck down portions of the Act. To me, that term carries the tone of disrespect better suited to Republican Presidential Debates. As the oldest law journal in the US, I expect the Legal to use a more respectful tone or at least the proper name of the statute when discussing this piece of legislation.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202514282548

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.