In State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, District Judge Roger Vinson has rejected the Obama Administration’s motion to dismiss the challenge that has been raised by 20 state attorneys general and four governors.

In the case, Federal Judge Vinson says two key claims can go forward. Firstly, the states’ claim that the individual mandate to purchase coverage exceeds the power granted to Congress by the commerce clause and violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Secondly, the claim that the medical program created under the act unconstitutionally commandeers the states with respect to the commerce clause.

Vinson wrote that he has not attempted whether the line between constitutional or not has been crossed but it is a question that will be decided based on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Vinson is not the first judge to reject the government’s arguments in recent months.

In August, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia refused to dismiss a challenge brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in the case Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. This case will hold a summay judgment hearing in October 18.  But, last week, on October 7, U.S. District Judge George Steeh in Detroit upheld the law’s constitutionality in a challenge brought by Thomas More Law Center in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama.

To learn more about the importance of suppression motions watch our top-rated course by Randy A. Hertz, "Suppression Motion Practice, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Issues"

To read the full article, click here