This case involves Florida and 19 other states challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  On October 14th, 2010, a district court judge in Florida refused to dismiss the case.

In the opinion, the judge did throw out some of the challenges made by the states, but some of the challenges remain.

1) Commerce Clause argument remains (Congress didn’t have the authority to pass the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause):

Since the Court isn’t making an official ruling on the merits, it would have been absurd to dismiss this claim (not that this stops other courts).  Here’s what the Court said:

At this stage in the litigation, this [Commerce Clause challenge] is not even a close call. I have read and am familiar with all the pertinent Commerce Clause cases…

The Court strongly agreed that the case involved “inactivity” and novel questions.  The judge clarified that the “novelty” didn’t necessarily mean the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but his opinion suggests a strong likelihood that he won’t buy the argument that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to force people into buying health insurance.

2) Tax Argument:  The Court dismissed the argument that if the penalties are deemed to be a tax, those taxes are unconstitutional–the argument was deemed moot.  

This is good news.  One of the ways, arguably, that Congress could have had authority to pass the mandate was based on its taxing power.  The Court makes it very clear that this is a non-issue because the penalties aren’t taxes at all, but are penalties:

I need not be concerned with the issue. As previously explained, it is quite clear that Congress did not intend the individual mandate penalty to be a tax; it is a penalty.

In my view, there’s a lot to be happy about–I think the Court got a lot right.  As I have said, the legal fight against ObamaCare will come down to the Commerce Clause issue.  At least with this judge, I don’t expect the individual mandate to survive.