This is big news as this is a key court. Here is a copy of the entire decision.
11-5047-1340594
Key parts of the decision (I'm going through the case now):
we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the Act is constitutional.It's a terribly wonky decision, debating the definition of a "tax," among other things. I'm going to wait until some analysis comes out from some health care lawyers.
This suit, like others, involves a challenge to the “minimum essential coverage provision,” which requires all “applicable individual[s]” to purchase and maintain “minimum essential coverage”–i.e., required essential health benefits in an insurance plan–for each month beginning in January 2014. This requirement is commonly called the “individual mandate.” Any “taxpayer” who “fails to meet the requirement” must pay a “shared responsibility payment,” labeled a “penalty,” which will be calculated by using the lesser of either a percentage of the taxpayer’s income or the national average premium for the lowest-level plan providing “minimum essential coverage.”1
Appellants, four United States citizens and federal taxpayers, seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent various U.S. Government officials and agencies from enforcing the minimum essential coverage provisions. They argue that the mandate exceeds Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and substantially burdens appellants Susan Seven-Sky’s and Charles Edward Lee’s religious exercise, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.3
