Dismissal of Mississippi Case Did Not Dismiss Unconstitutionality of “Obamacare”

While I had not read the brief yet, it was not surprising that the latest court case against the federal Healthcare Law in Mississippi was dismissed. (I have since read the brief.) In truth, it is not only fully understandable; it would not have been prudent to do anything otherwise than to dismiss the case. Contrary to the media hype, or whatever comments may come from the federal government about a victory, this case was actually not about the constitutionality of the law. It was about the specific loss to a number of individuals who filed the suit. While the issue of constitutionality is still an ominous, looming concern, the principle of the laws constitutionality was not considered and thus, cannot be considered a victory for the Administration on those grounds.

What Americans who have not been in the court system, nor studied or observed it first hand, need to understand, is that law suits are not necessarily dismissed because they are frivolous, or without merit. Many times it is simply about the strategy of a complaint and how it is presented in argument. In this case, the argument was that certain individuals, through the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, would incur loss because of the Healthcare Law. This is extremely problematic from the outset. District Courts are designed to hear concrete evidence. The matter at heart in the Healthcare Law is actually one of the abstract—the principles behind the practice as laid out in the Constitution. But District courts are designed for the practice of the principles.

For instance, if a crime is committed, evidence of the crime is brought to court. Whether the case is won or lost is not as must about whether the crime was actually committed, but whether sufficient evidence—the concrete—was brought before the court to render a guilty verdict. Nor is it about whether the law is a just one. One cannot take a neighbor to court because one suspects the neighbor will rob them, even if they just might. There are no facts of loss to support such a verdict. We don’t convict people on possibility, but upon what has happened.

The same holds true for civil cases. I may bring a suit against my neighbor because I suspect they are drug dealers and therefore the value of my home will drop because of the unsafe and undesirable element, but I cannot prove that is the case without substantial evidence. Indeed, hypothetically, just the opposite may be true. I might attract drug dealers to my home as a ‘safe haven’ neighborhood for them to do their dastardly deeds. And they may be willing to pay more for my home than I would otherwise get. While that scenario is not likely, it cannot be ruled out. Since I cannot prove a loss, I won’t be awarded, nor action taken in my behalf, based upon my concerns. They are not concrete and I don’t have sufficient evidence to prove my theory. However, I might call the police or press charges against the neighbor, provided I can bring forth enough evidence for the police to file a criminal warrant—such as being in the home, knowing where the drugs are, and to whom they have been sold

Hence it is with this case. The bottom line on this case is that there was not sufficient concrete evidence to show that a loss was imminent or already occurring. For instance, there are several loopholes in the Healthcare Law, as the exact wording puts it, “exceptions,” to those who are subject to the law. They are:

1)persons who are subject to certain religious exemptions;
2) persons who are not lawfully present in this country; and
3) persons who are incarcerated. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d).

Additionally,

“Minimum essential coverage” is defined as health insurance coverage obtained through certain government-sponsored programs, eligible employer-sponsored insurance plans, or other eligible insurance plans obtained through the individual market. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(f)(1).

But the law also has certain other loopholes. And here is where the judge would have the most difficulty deciding in favor of the Plaintiffs. Even if an individual is not among those exempted from the law, no penalty can be imposed for those who cannot afford medical insurance, or those whose income is so low that they are not required to file an income tax return, or

…members of Native American tribes; 4) those who experience only a short gap in coverage; and 5) those who, subject to the determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(e).

The above clause in the law allows a wild card that cannot be substantially determined unless the conditions are in play. Hence the reason the court used the legal term that the case criterion were not “ripe” under the above circumstances: It is too early to tell just how the law might incur a loss for the plaintiffs. The facts of this case were that one plaintiff is currently insured through an employer. Hence, the federal Healthcare Law would appear to have no effect upon this person, thus no apparent loss. Another person did not have a medical insurance plan and did not want one. But there was no evidence showing the loss if this person was required to have it.

The judge wisely reminded the plaintiffs that they had 30 days to modify their original complaint. This is a hint. The judge did not even consider the constitutionality of the law, on its own merits. He had no opportunity, since the way in which the complaint was brought allowed him no way to progress to that point, as in the Florida ruling. If the Plaintiffs want to succeed in this case, they must show the concrete loss, as other cases that have won have done.

It is possible for the plaintiffs to show this, but it may be an uphill battle. For instance, if the individual who currently has insurance knew that once the Healthcare Law was instituted, his employer was going to mandate that everyone have coverage, whether they wanted it or not, or be fired, that could possibly show the loss needed, provided the employer was willing to go into court and testify to that fact. Testimony is considered fact, thus the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s employment might warrant loss, provided all other “what ifs” were eliminated against the plaintiff’s complaint.

While the court ruled to dismissal, but granting 30 days to redress the claims, the Obama Administration could hardly call this a sound success toward solidifying the legitimacy of the Healthcare Law. Its constitutional legitimacy was never the point of this case.