(WASHINGTON) -- Federal Judge Roger Vinson is poised to issue an order this week clarifying the ruling he made on Jan. 31, 2011, that struck down the entire health care law.
Why does he need to clarify? Because the Obama administration argues it isn’t sure whether Vinson’s ruling was meant to halt the implementation of provisions of the law currently in effect.
Vinson found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and he said that the rest of the law could not stand without the mandate, but he declined to impose an injunction which would have immediately blocked the enforcement of the law. Instead he said his ruling was the “functional equivalent of an injunction.”
It’s all a bit of a legal gymnastics because if the administration gets an adverse ruling from Vinson it will immediately appeal to the 11th Circuit. It’s highly likely that the 11th Circuit would grant a stay.
What parts of the law currently in effect are at issue? The White House says in a blog: “Seniors will pay higher prices for their prescription drugs and small businesses will pay higher taxes because small business tax credits would be eliminated. And the new provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying, capping or limiting your care would be wiped away.”
Meanwhile, the state of Florida, which brought the challenge along with 25 other states, says the administration is playing games: finding a platform to criticize the judge’s ruling when it could have simply immediately asked for a stay.
Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio