A federal judge in Harrisburg, Pa., found the individual mandate included in the federal health reform law unconstitutional, adding another chapter to the contradictory rulings of federal courts.

The parties that filed a Michigan challenge to the federal health reform law passed last year have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision deeming the law constitutional.

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled the federal health reform law constitutional, the latest in a string of conflicting rulings regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general who argued an appeal challenging the federal health reform law, predicted after the hearing in Richmond today (May 10) that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to rule on the controversial case in June 2012.

A three-judge federal appeals panel is scheduled today (May 10) to hear arguments in the first major challenges of the federal health reform law passed last year.

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general, is “cautiously optimistic” about his challenge of the federal health reform law.

The U.S. Supreme Court, if and when it chooses to review the federal health reform law, is not likely to rule against Congress’ imposition of an individual mandate to buy insurance, according to a legal expert.

The likely next important step in the legal debate over the federal health reform law passed last year appears likely to take place in Richmond, Va., in May.

I am not a Constitutional expert. I do not know precedent regarding cases involving the federal government encroaching on state’s rights as set forth in the Constitution. I just want to get that out of the way before anyone reads my next statement.

Unfortunately, the ruling today by a Virginia federal judge that the individual mandate of the federal health reform law is unconstitutional will be viewed through a political lens instead of the legal lens, through which it must be examined.