Gansler won’t appeal death of ‘Wal-Mart bill’

In January, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the groundbreaking Maryland bill that would have forced giant discount retailer Wal-Mart to spend a specific percentage of its money on health care was illegal because it violates federal law.

Gansler said he does not believe the so-called “Wal-Mart bill” was unconstitutional, but that any attempt at an appeal would fail.

The state bill, called the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act, required employers with 10,000 or more Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their total payrolls on employee health insurance or pay the difference in taxes.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, including Wal-Mart, filed suit against Maryland to declare that the law is pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore agreed that the Maryland bill was illegal and wrote it “imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart.”

In affirming Motz’s decision, Judge Paul Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit wrote: “As sensitive as we are to the right of Maryland and other states to enact laws of their own choosing, we are also bound to enforce ERISA as the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’ ”

At the time, Judge M. Blane Michael issued a dissenting opinion, arguing the state had the authority to enact the law.

“Maryland ... is wrestling with explosive growth in the cost of Medicaid,” Michael wrote. “Innovative ideas for solving the funding crisis are required.”

Gansler said he believes his decision not to seek an appeal will force the issue back to the legislature.

Vincent Demarco, president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative, said he agreed with Gansler’s decision.

“His reasoning was correct,” he said. “It’s not the right time to go to the Supreme Court on this. We pledge to work with him to make Fair Share happen.”

lbroadwater@baltimoreexaminer.com