U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida has struck down the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. In his ruling, available here, Judge Vinson held that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate “inactivity,” the authority claimed to apply the individual mandate.

His ruling does not suspend implementation of the law, however.

This is the suit brought by the states — originally 20, now up to 26 — and the National Federal of Independent Business. The NFIB issued a release, “Judge Rules Healthcare Law Unconstitutional: NFIB, 26 states prevail in lawsuit against federal healthcare law“:

Washington, D.C., January 31, 2011—In a highly anticipated decision in the lawsuit brought by the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states, federal district Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that the individual mandate in the healthcare law is unconstitutional and that this provision can not be severed from the rest of the healthcare law.

“NFIB is extremely pleased with Judge Vinson’s decision,” said Karen Harned, executive director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center. “NFIB joined this case to protect the rights of small-business owners to own, operate and grow their businesses free from unnecessary government intervention. The individual mandate, which forces citizens to purchase government approved health insurance, undermines this core principle and gives the federal government entirely too much power. We are delighted Judge Vinson agreed with NFIB and the states on this critical issue.”

Media coverage immediately jumped to the political implications of the decision, but the judge’s ruling warrants close reading before the specularama takes over. John O’Brien at the Chamber-backed Legal Newsline does so in his report, “Judge strikes down ObamaCare in ‘difficult decision’.” He cites key passages in which Judge Vinson explains why he struck down the entire law and not just the individual mandate.

Because the mandate is too integral a part to be separated, Vinson voided the entire legislation. He called it “a difficult decision to reach.”

“If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not,” he added. (continue reading…)

The National Association of Manufacturers on Tuesday sent a “Key Vote” letter to House members urging support of H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. From the letter:

The vast majority of American manufacturers, including 97 percent of NAM member companies, voluntarily offer health benefits not only to attract a skilled workforce, but because they believe it is the right thing to do for their employees. Our members support proposals that reduce soaring health costs, improve the efficiency of the current system and enhance the quality of care.

Conversely, manufacturers oppose proposals that make it more expensive or more difficult for employers to offer health benefits. Legislation enacted in 2010 – specifically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act – will drive up manufacturers’ health care costs and force many companies to consider abandoning the generous benefits they currently offer.

We remain adamantly opposed to the new laws’ employer mandates, industry-specific fees, Medicare hospital insurance tax increases, reporting requirements, excise taxes and limits on Flexible Spending Accounts – all of which will place more burdens on America’s job creators. Our nation can and must do much better at finding a health care solution, and the 2010 legislation should be repealed.

Determined by a committee presenting NAM members of all sizes, Key Votes are used to rate a member of Congress’ record on manufacturing-related issues.

NAM President John Engler mentioned the medical device industry in remarks at the Managing Automation Summit in Palm Beach, Fla., yesterday, remarking that it was one of the industries where U.S. industry is an indisputable global leader. And how does Congress treat this center of competitiveness and innovation? By taxing it to pay for an expansion of health care?

Here’s the inevitable response, via The Boston Herald, “Mass. device firms see health law as burden“:

Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs – and jobs – after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.

The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, which held its annual meeting yesterday in Boston, said about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.

The tax – imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion – is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.

MassDevice, an online trade publication, also covers the survey, “Survey: Device tax could force job cuts, higher prices.”