The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that it would appeal a federal judge’s decision to strike down a critical statute of the health care overhaul that was passed earlier this year. The judge’s decision provoked widespread speculation about what it could mean for the future of the landmark legislation.

(Creative Commons)

Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia declared on Monday that the law’s mandate requiring every U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance violates the Constitution. This is the first federal court decision to rule against the health care law. Republicans have hailed this as a breakthrough in their efforts to repeal the legislation.

The issue is expected to reach the Supreme Court. The courts are the Republicans’ best bet for repealing President Obama’s health care reforms. Any congressional attempt at repeal would likely fail in the Senate and the President would veto it even if it passed.

Legal expert Edward Kleinbard expressed skepticism about conservatives’ attempts to hype the ruling. The celebratory reactions may be disproportionate, he said, considering that conservatives in the media gave little attention to two previous rulings that upheld the law.

“Opponents brought many lawsuits all across the country in the express hope of finding judges who were sympathetic to their points of view, and it’s not surprising that they found one,” he said.

“There was not a lot of effort to hype up the earlier opinions, and now that they’ve got one going their way, they seem to be very interested in publicizing that fact.”

The website MediaMatters.org also criticized Fox News for devoting a disproportional amount of air-time to the latest ruling. Fox’s Peter Johnson, Jr., told viewers the ruling is “the dream of the Tea Party.”

Republicans have argued that this case should skip the appeals court process and go directly to the Supreme Court. Kleinbard said this is unlikely, though possible. The Supreme Court would have to volunteer to take the case right away.

“I would have guessed that the Supreme Court would not do so because they would want the opportunity to benefit from the opinions of the courts of appeal,” he said.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler argued that the case would follow the normal procedure.

"Virginia's suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide, and the department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it," she said in a statement.

Kleinbard also said Hudson’s core analysis of the health care law’s individual mandate is fundamentally wrong.

“The core of Judge Hudson’s argument – that this is Congress, for the first time, trying to compel Americans to buy something that they might not want wish to buy – is false. It’s false because, first of all, we’re required to buy insurance in the form of Social Security, whether we want it or not. And more directly it’s false because the decision not to buy health insurance… is fundamentally different from the decision not to grow wheat on your farm.”

A major difference, he argued, is that people who elect to not buy health insurance still participate in the health care market because they will receive care in an emergency even if an insurance company does not cover them.

The mandate in question does not go into effect until 2014.

Reach News Editor Ryan Faughnder here. Follow him on Twitter here.