Fox News: “Florida Judge Hands Victory To Health Care Opponents”

Moments After Ruling Was Announced, Fox News Declared It A “Victory For The Opponents Of” Health Care Reform. In Fox News' first segment on the subject after the ruling came out, purported “straight news” anchor Megyn Kelly declared that the ruling constituted a “victory for the opponents of President Obama's health care overhaul.” She added that “moments ago, the federal judge down in Florida who ruled that the president's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, just delivered a defeat to the Obama administration, ordering it to appeal that ruling almost immediately and ordering the DOJ to pursue an expedited appeal.” Kelly later added that the judge said, “if you want to appeal it, and you want me to hold the extent -- the impact of the ruling while you pursue an appeal, that's fine. That's done in virtually every case. But you have got to file an appeal, and you have got to do it quickly.” [Fox News, America Live, 3/3/11]

During the segment, Fox aired the following on-screen text:

Fox & Friends' Johnson: “Judge Vinson Basically Laughs At The Federal Government In This Decision.” On the March 4 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. asserted:

JOHNSON: This is a cry of sanity out from the darkness. Judge Vinson basically laughs at the federal government in this decision and scoffs at the notion that they didn't understand what his 78-page decision a month ago said. He said the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the whole statute is unconstitutional, I'm so ruling, and it applies to the 26 or so states that made this application in my court. And he said this is a matter of great national significance. People's lives are on the line. People have viewpoints on both sides --

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Businesses on the line too, yeah.

JOHNSON: of the issue. And he says OK, fine. Not only am I going to clarify and tell you that I ruled it unconstitutional and that I as a federal court judge have made this order and this injunction, but I'm telling you, you have seven days to file your appeal --

KILMEADE: So what does this mean?

JOHNSON: stop pussyfooting around. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/4/11]

Judge Actually Stayed His Own Ruling, Saying That The Government May Well Succeed On Appeal

Judge Said His Ruling Meant That Government Could Not Enforce The Health Care Reform Law, But Immediately Issued A Stay. From Florida federal district judge Roger Vinson's March 3 order:

This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation.

[...]

After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants' motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED. However, the stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of that Court. [Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, 3/3/11]

Judge Stated That Government May Very Well Win Its Appeal. From Vinson's March 3 order:

For the first factor, I cannot say that the defendants do not have a likelihood of success on appeal. They do. And so do the plaintiffs. Although I strongly believe that expanding the commerce power to permit Congress to regulate and mandate mental decisions not to purchase health insurance (or any other product or service) would emasculate much of the rest of the Constitution and effectively remove all limitations on the power of the federal government, I recognize that others believe otherwise. The individual mandate has raised some novel issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government about which reasonable and intelligent people (and reasonable and intelligent jurists) can disagree. [Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, 3/3/11]

Judge Said That Allowing Decision Striking Down The Law To Take Immediate Effect “Would Be Extremely Disruptive And Cause Significant Uncertainty.” From Vinson's March 3 order:

I must next consider the injury to the defendants if the stay is not entered, and the injury to the plaintiffs if it is. The Act, as previously noted, is obviously very complicated and expansive. It contains about 450 separate provisions with different time schedules for implementation. Some are currently in effect, while others, including the individual mandate, are not scheduled to go into effect for several years. In their motion, the defendants have identified and described the “significant disruption” and “wide-ranging and indeterminate consequences” that could result if implementation of the entire Act must stop immediately [see Def. Mot. at 4, 7-11], and, upon review and consideration of these arguments, I agree that it would indeed be difficult to enjoin and halt the Act's implementation while the case is pending appeal. It would be extremely disruptive and cause significant uncertainty.

[...]

I do not doubt that assuming that my ruling is eventually affirmed the plaintiffs will sustain injury if the Act continues to be implemented.

[...]

However, after balancing the potential harm to the plaintiffs against the potential harm to the defendants, I find that, on balance, these two factors weigh in favor of granting a stay particularly in light of several unusual facts present in this case. [Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, 3/3/11]

Judge Said Government Made “Reasonably Persuasive Argument” That “The 'Public Interest Lies' ” In Not Allowing The Decision To Take Immediate Effect. From Vinson's March 3 order:

Finally, for the last factor, I must consider “where the public interest lies.” Although the defendants' pleadings present a reasonably persuasive argument for why the “public interest lies” in having my declaratory judgment and de facto injunction stayed pending appeal, almost every argument that the defendants have advanced speaks much more persuasively to why the case should be immediately appealed and pursued in the most expeditious and accelerated manner allowable. [Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, 3/3/11]

Justice Department: “We Appreciate The Court's Recognition Of The Enormous Disruption That Would Have Resulted If Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act Was Abruptly Halted.” The U.S. Justice Department released the following statement regarding Vinson's order:

Tracy Schmaler, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs released the following statement:

“We appreciate the court's recognition of the enormous disruption that would have resulted if implementation of the Affordable Care Act was abruptly halted. We welcome the court's granting of a stay to allow the current programs and consumer protections, including tax credits to small business and millions of dollars in federal grants to help states with health care costs, to continue pending our appeal in the Eleventh Circuit.

”We strongly disagree with the district court's underlying ruling in this case and continue to believe - as three federal courts have found - that this law is constitutional. There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal." [Department of Justice, The Justice Blog, 3/3/11]

Governor Who Had Halted Implementation Of Health Care Law Reversed Course After Judge's Order

NY Times: Alaska Governor Announced That, In Light Of Judge's Decision, “Our Administration Will Treat The Federal Health Law As Being In Place.” From a March 3 New York Times article:

[T]he Obama administration did not immediately cease carrying out the law and, rather than seek a stay, asked the judge to clarify his ruling. States were unsure how to proceed, with some stopping all planning and others acting as if nothing had changed.

That began to change quickly with the issuance of Judge Vinson's stay on Thursday.

Gov. Sean Parnell of Alaska, a Republican who announced last month that his state would not put in effect the health law in light of Judge Vinson's ruling, said Thursday that “our administration will treat the federal health care law as being in place.” [New York Times, 3/3/11]