The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a procedural motion asking US District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida to provide more information regarding the meaning of his January 31 decision declaring the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. This document was entitled “Motion to Clarify.” In essence it asks Judge Vinson to provide detail on what the government should do in light of his ruling.
Judge Addressed All Legal Concepts
Judge Vinson’s 78 page opinion discusses in detail the legal concepts of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” and “severability”. The analysis of these concepts brought the judge to the conclusion that the “individual mandate” was unconstitutional and was so critical to the entire legislative scheme of the Affordable Care Act that it could not be “severed” and the entire law was unconstitutional and void.
Regarding the conduct of all departments of government if a law has been found void in a court proceeding on constitutional grounds, the rule dates back to 1804 and Marbury v. Madison:
"... a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Procedural Rules Define How a Matter in Court Proceeds
There are other general legal concepts to be considered in the ruling, most of which are what are considered to be procedural. Procedural concepts in law are not related to the policy of a law, its constitutionality or its meaning in enforcement. Procedural concepts are those about the rules, such as when and where a suit is to be filed, who can be a party to a suit, time frames to file court documents and the like. These are rules about the process. The process rules are like those defining how a game is to be played, not about the meaning of the result. The Motion to Clarify appears to ask the judge to define the meaning of things for the government that are typically considered procedural.
Summary Judgment, Declaratory Judgment, Injunction, Stay
Procedural rules and outcomes have various names. In this case, Judge Vinson issued Summary Judgment for the plaintiffs, meaning that there were no issues of fact to decide and that the only matters to be decided were questions of law. The result of this Summary Judgment was a Declaratory Judgment that declared as a matter of law the “individual mandate” and the entire Affordable Care Act were unconstitutional.
Judge Vinson declined to issue an Injunction which would have required detailing for the parties their specific duties related to his decision and would have required extended special hearings in order to address legal questions revolving around a four part test for the issuance of an Injunction. If a party commits an act in violation of an Injunction, a judge may impose penalties for contempt of court.
Judge Vinson also did not issue a Stay of the effect of his order. Issuing a Stay would have meant that his order would not have had effect and the parties would not be bound by it until a higher court made a decision based upon an appeal or the parties’ time for filing an appeal (another part of the process rules) had expired. As the judge did not Stay his order, its effect was immediate and effective unless overturned by an appellate court.
Opinion Included Review of the Order’s Effect on the Executive Branch of US
The DOJ Motion to Clarify asks Judge Vinson to tell the Department the meaning of his various findings and actions in the January 31 opinion. The judge, in evident anticipation, took time to explain the meaning in the opinion:
“Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary”… and “drastic” remedy... It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction… declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court” (citations omitted)
Government’s Motion to Clarify
It seems apparent Judge Vinson explained the meaning of his ruling along with making it. The law is unconstitutional. Federal officials are expected to not enforce an unconstitutional law.
The Motion to Clarify is very unusual procedurally. The typical legal process regarding a ruling that a party does not believe to be correct involves one of two actions, either a Motion to Reconsider, which asks the judge to take another look at the issues and perhaps change the ruling, or request the proper appellate court to overturn the judge’s decision. It is very rare that a party to a lawsuit ask the judge in the case how to proceed. It would be even more rare if the judge were to give such advice.
David J. Shestokas - Mr. Shestokas is a former prosecutor & writes on the Constitution & legal issues for the Save America Foundation & Suite 101.
Join the Conversation