Monday, December 13, 2010
Obamacare Declared Unconstitutional By Federal District Court; Other Legal News.
A federal district judge in Virginia has sided with the Commonwealth of Virginia in its challenge to the individual insurance mandate of the "Obamacare" health care law. The individual insurance mandate requires that, starting in 2014, every United States citizen maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or suffer a tax penalty. As District Judge Henry E. Harmon explained: "Importantly, it is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance." In his decision, the judge rejected each of the government's arguments in favor of the law, concluding that the government lacked the constitutional authority to impose the mandate under either the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the General Welfare Clause. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sibelius (Dec. 13, 2010). (WSJ) (WSJ Law Blog) With different courts issuing conflicting decisions regarding the individual mandate, it appears inevitable that the issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court. (Fox News)
A three-judge panel of the federal district court in Massachusetts last week heard arguments in an attorney disciplinary proceeding against a federal prosecutor who is accused of not disclosing exculpatory evidence during an organized crime trial more than a decade ago. Specifically, the prosecutor allegedly failed to inform defense attorneys that a government witness had recanted some statements about the role of the defendant mobsters in a Boston murder. (National Law Journal) Coincidentally, USA Today is running a series on abuses by federal prosecutors, which is discussed (with links) in the WSJ Law Blog. The fundamental problem with preventing and punishing abuses by prosecutors -- which generally involves not turning over exculpatory evidence to defendants -- is that prosecutors (like most government officials) are afforded broad civil immunity for their official actions. If it were easier to sue prosecutors for money damages in court, there would be fewer prosecutorial abuses of power and fewer citizens whose rights are violated without redress.
Last week a jury in Buffalo, New York, awarded $66 million to a woman who was injured when a 600-pound weight machine fell on her. The 30-year-old woman was working as a physical therapy assistant when the accident happened. She was paralyzed from the neck down. Under New York's comparative liability rule, the maker of the weight machine (Cybex International) was found 75 percent liable, the woman's employer was found 20 percent liable, and the woman herself was found 5 percent liable. (Buffalo News) While the jury verdict may be excessive (depending on the facts of the case and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries), large tort awards unquestionably "incentivize" businesses to make safer products. Interestingly, Cybex reportedly only maintains $4 million in insurance coverage. This appears too low, given the potential for catastrophic injuries caused by exercise machines (hence the warnings on the machines).
Today the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case involving the consitutionality of the New York judiciary rules restricting attorney advertising, many of which were struck down as unconstitutional by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in March. The Supreme Court's decision not to accept the state's appeal effectively affirms the Second Circuit's decision. This is good news for New York attorneys, especially solo and small firm practitioners who rely on advertising to compete in the increasingly crowded legal services marketplace. The WSJ Law Blog has the story.