If the minimum coverage provision takes effect as enacted, it will require many people with incomes above a certain level who do not get health coverage from their employers to buy a minimum level of health coverage or else pay a penalty. The provision, set to take effect in 2014, provides for exceptions for individuals with religious objections to owning health coverage and individuals who cannot find affordable health coverage.

Health insurers have argued that they can provide affordable health coverage for all, without basing rates on health status, only if the government requires all people—including relatively young, healthy people—to have health coverage.

Judge Vinson ruled that, because, in his eyes, the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and because PPACA is not written in such a way that the mandate can be considered separately from the rest of the act, "the entire act must be declared void."

There is widespread sentiment for reducing the cost of health care and improving the quality, and the case "is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation," Judge Vinson said.

"This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Judge Vinson said. "At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'"

Judge Vinson earlier asked during oral arguments whether Congress could use the same rationale it used to impose an individual health coverage ownership mandate in the health care law to require citizens to eat broccoli.

The Obama administration officials who defended the mandate said the commerce clause, a part of the U.S. Constitution, gives the federal government the right to regulate economic activity that has an interstate impact.

This story originally appeared on National Underwriter Life & Health's website.