On June 22, the Urban Institute released a report examining state challenges to the national health care reform law’s individual insurance mandate.  The authors assert that the individual mandate has a legitimate legal basis; however, they highlight two vulnerabilities of the mandate. The authors note that the U.S. Supreme Court could establish a new legal precedent by ruling against the mandate and further caution that the mandate’s enforcement provisions are too weak to guarantee the government’s ability to ensure coverage.  

From the report:

Can the federal government require individuals to have health coverage? During congressional health reform debates, opponents occasionally claimed that such a mandate is unconstitutional. Supporters countered that the individual mandate is an integral part of health insurance reform, and is supported by clear authority to regulate interstate commerce and to enact federal taxes. Since enactment, attorneys general in Florida and Virginia have sued in federal court to block implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The suit in Florida has been joined by officials from numerous other states. The act’s opponents see courts as their “last line of defense,” as noted by a headline in congressional news daily The Hill.

Full report: Are State Challenges to the Legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Likely to Succeed? (PDF | 231.2 KB)

The Urban Institute. (2010). Are state challenges to the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act likely to succeed? Bovbjerg, R.