Circuit Court rulings are only valid within the area covered by the Circuit. You cannot say "this law is unconstitutional" based on the ruling of a single circuit court. You can say that the ruling, whatever it is, is applicable within that circuit, so yes, I'd agree that the law is currently deemed unconstitutional within that circuit. In this case, Judge Vinson is in the Northern District of Florida which covers, well, northern Florida.
There is debate about whether or not Judge Vinson told the Federal Government to stop enforcement of the law within the district. He refused a request by the state of Florida for an injunction to stop the Federal Government from moving forward while it appeals, but he did also make the confusing statement about declaratory judgments. The Federal government is requesting a stay of the judgement/clarification. That decision is currently being appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which broadly covers the South East US. In summary, it currently stands thusly: 2 District courts (in Virginia and Michigan) have found it to be constitutional 1 District court found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional (in Virginia) but allowed the rest of the law to be allowed due to severability 1 District court found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional (in northern Florida) and found that the rest of the law was unenforceable due to the centrality of the individual mandate In both cases where the individual mandate was held to be unconstitutional, there was no injunction relief given to plaintiffs to stop the government from moving forward during the appeals process, but there is some debate over the situation in Florida due to Judge Vinson talking about how a declaratory judgment against the government is like an injunction but not actually providing an injunction. Judah On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "That is not how United States law works. The bill is > Constitutional despite Judge Vinson's opinion (or yours)." > > > Not quite. > > The ruling: > > The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs request for injunctive > relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very > quickly. Injunctive relief is an extraordinary [Weinberger v. > Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], > and drastic remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 > L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. 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.* See Comm. on Judiciary of > U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); > accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. > 1985)* (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)* (Scalia, J.) > > That means cease and desist. At least until a stay is granted or appeal is > won. > > J > > - > > The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that > government spends too much. - Ronald Reagan > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:334502 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
