Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: Nov 11, 2010

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

In the wake of the newly passed federal healthcare bill, some states have resisted abiding by its terms. The federal law reforms healthcare in the U.S. and requires most individuals to have health insurance. Minutes after the bill was signed into law, 20 states (represented by their attorneys general or governors) filed suit against it arguing that Congress was acting beyond its powers in requiring individuals to purchase insurance, and that the law violated state sovereignty.

In the November 2010 election, voters in three states used the ballot box to voice their displeasure with healthcare reform. Constitutional amendments were approved in both Arizona and Oklahoma expressly exempting those states from the federal healthcare requirements. Meanwhile, a Missouri statute to the same effect was approved by voters there. Colorado also had a constitutional amendment on the ballot, but it failed.

The Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma measures all essentially maintain that individuals would not be required to purchase private health insurance. Since this is in direct opposition to the federal law, it is unlikely that these state measures will have any practical effect. According to the Constitution, when a federal law is passed, it is “supreme” over state laws that contradict it. This means that as long as the federal law is held to be constitutional, a contradictory state law will probably be found to be unconstitutional.

Some question does remain, though, as to whether the federal law might be unconstitutional. A Michigan judge recently threw out a lawsuit against the federal law, but a federal judge in Florida has allowed the suit by the 20 states to go forward. The judge will hear arguments on whether it is constitutional for the federal government to require individuals to buy private health insurance, and whether this violates states’ sovereignty.

In the meantime, the new laws in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma are a symbolic stand against federally mandated healthcare, but unless the federal healthcare law is struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, the symbolism is unlikely to turn into anything concrete.