We have had two decisions in Federal Courts supporting the bill and now we have a decision against the bill. The two judges arguing in behalf of the bill were appointed by Clinton and the judge arguing against the bill was appointed by Bush. It appears that judicial decisions are motivated more by political philosophy than they should be.
The challenge concerns one of the features of the bill that mandates the purchase of health insurance. The dissenting judge argued that the government cannot mandate against inaction. The other judges argued that the inaction was a decision to pay for needed healthcare in the future.
These issues were not raised when the Massachusetts health care bill, which mandates the purchase of insurance, was passed. Perhaps it matters which party proposes a bill rather than whether is bill is constitutional. I also wonder how this affects other federal laws which mandate insurance coverage. For example, homeowners in Florida are required by federal law to purchase insurance on their homes to protect them against damage by weather related causes. This was done to prevent homeowners without insurance coverage from abandoning damaged homes.