––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted October 21, 2010
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Cox praises ruling paving the way for MI Healthcare

Attorney General Mike Cox today praised a Florida Judge's ruling that denied President Obama's request to stop Michigan's healthcare lawsuit.
''Never before in our history have you had to buy something as the price of citizenship,'' Cox said. ''Today's ruling is a victory for the Constitutional rights of every American. Our legal challenge will go forward, and I am confident our defenses of state sovereignty and individual freedom will ultimately prevail.''
Today U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson issued a ruling allowing the health care lawsuit filed by Michigan, nineteen other states, and the National Federation of Independent Business against the federal government to move forward, noting that, ''the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed'' between Constitutional and extraconstitutional government (p. 65).
Judge Vinson's ruling allows the states' primary claims to proceed: one count challenging the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, as well as a second count challenging the commandeering of state resources to expand the Medicaid program in violation of Article 1 and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The next step in Michigan's legal challenge comes Thursday, November 4, 2010, when the parties will file motions for summary judgment. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for December 16, 2010.
In August of this year, a federal judge also allowed the state of Virginia's challenge to the health care law to move forward. In that ruling, U.S District Court Judge Henry Hudson said, ''Never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far.''
Like Michigan's case, the Virginia case questions the federal government's authority to force Americans to purchase a product as the price of citizenship. While parts of the ruling were unique to Virginia's statute banning a healthcare mandate, much of the analysis referenced the very same legal arguments at the center of healthcare lawsuit filed by Michigan, nineteen other states and the NFIB in March, including the federal government's claims of authority under the Commerce Clause. Click here to view a copy of the ruling.
Copyright © 2010 State of Michigan
Published: Thu, Oct 21, 2010
headlines Ingham County
- MSU Law Moot Court team of two 3L students emerges national champions at First Amendment Competiton in D.C.
- MSU Law captivated by prominent Harvard professor analyzing artificial intelligence
- OWLS Meeting
- Advocate: Former insurance pro studies in Dual JD program
- Man with disabilities settles accessibility lawsuit
headlines National
- Wearable neurotech devices are becoming more prevalent; is the law behind the curve?
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- How will you celebrate Well-Being Week in Law?
- Judge rejects home confinement for ‘slots whisperer’ lawyer who spent nearly $9M in investor money
- Lawyer charged with stealing beer, trying to bite officer
- Likeness of man killed in road-rage incident gives impact statement at sentencing, thanks to AI