( CNN ) -- Score one for Obamacare supporters in court on Tuesday . A three-judge appeals panel in Washington unanimously rejected a novel challenge to how the Affordable Care Act took shape in Congress . The court found lawmakers did not violate the Constitution when laying out the so-called individual mandate , which requires most Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty . An Iowa small business owner and a conservative legal group said the measure was unlawful , arguing it was intended to raise revenue and improperly originated in the Senate . Under the Constitution 's Origination Clause , revenue-raising legislation must begin in the House . Opinion : Gutting Obamacare is playing with lives . But the court concluded the challenge did not pass muster -- that the politically-charged law approved with only Democratic support in 2010 was not designed mainly to raise money for the government , but to ensure more Americans got health coverage . `` Today 's decision is disappointing , because it relied on a new and unprecedented distinction to exempt the Obamacare tax from the Constitution 's rules for enacting taxes , '' said Timothy Sandefur , principal attorney at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation . `` We think that 's wrong , and that 's what we 'll be taking to the Supreme Court if necessary , '' Sandefur said . The challenge was raised by Matt Sissel , a Cedar Rapids , Iowa , artist , gallery owner and part time National Guard member . He opposes being forced to purchase health insurance under the government mandate . His lawyers argued Senate Democratic leaders pushed a `` shell game '' -- taking an unrelated bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House , removing every word , and replacing it with key parts of the Affordable Care Act , including the individual mandate . Study : Obamacare gave 10 million Americans health insurance . A divided Supreme Court , in a blockbuster decision , ruled in 2012 that the law 's individual mandate was constitutional , labeling it a tax . Last week , the D.C. circuit dealt Obamacare supporters an appeals court setback when it limited subsidies and tax breaks available for millions of people who signed up for coverage through a federally-run insurance marketplace . A separate appeals panel in Richmond concluded the exact opposite on the same day -- saying the subsidies were lawful . That conflict likely will land that issue before the Supreme Court in coming months . Conversely , the Sissel challenge now faces a potentially uphill battle for Supreme Court consideration following the appeals decision . Appeals courts differ on Obamacare ; Supreme Court case likely . FAQ : What the Obamacare court decisions mean for you . Watchdog : Fake applicants got Obamacare subsidies .
D.C. appeals court unanimously rejected challenge to how the new law took effect . A key provision , the individual mandate , originated in the legislation . The law says such legislation should have passed in the House , the challengers argued .