Jay Sekulow
Recommend this article

In May, I told you about an important brief we filed at a federal appeals court urging that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare go forward.

Today, we filed an additional brief that bolsters our argument. In this brief, posted here, we reject the Justice Department's position that the individual mandate is constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause.

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, we argue the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional: "There is no American tradition of forcing unwilling individuals to operate a business or buy a good or service in the name of 'regulating commerce,' and it is not a coincidence that the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause cases upholding regulation under the 'substantial effects' test have involved the regulation of ongoing commercial or economic activities, unlike Section 1501. Nothing in law or logic supports Defendants' novel extension of this federal regulatory authority to mere inaction, decisions, or thought processes that relate to an economic topic."

"Defendants' arguments based on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses are flawed and lack legal support," the brief asserts.

We also contend that the Department of Justice has done nothing to demonstrate that the constitutional rights of two of the plaintiffs have not been violated by the individual mandate provision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The brief contends: "Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs Lee and Seven-Sky failed to sufficiently allege that Section 1501 substantially burdens their religious exercise, nor have Defendants shown that the individual mandate, as applied to Lee and Seven-Sky, is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

The fact is that our legal challenge targeting the pro-abortion, government-run health care law is grounded in the Constitution. Conversely, the arguments put forth by the Department of Justice are legally flawed and, quite frankly, lack support in the text, history, or related Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Recommend this article

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow is one of the foremost legal advocates in the area of constitutional law and religious liberties. As Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow regularly appears before the United States Supreme Court, and is one of the most sought after advocates for religious liberty. Jay Sekulow is also a highly followed broadcaster and respected commentator.