A U.S. appeals court in Richmond, Va. rejected Liberty University's (LU) challenge of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare reform bill, Reuters reported.

LU said "Obamacare" violated First Amendment religious rights, as well as imposing expensive burdens on large companies. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 Thursday against LU's objection.

Mathew Staver, dean of LU's law school, said the school is planning on appealing the decision to the Supreme Court later this month.

"It goes against the principle that the Supreme Court laid down that Congress cannot force individuals to buy an unwanted product," he told Reuters. "We believe the same principle applies to employers. If we win on the employer mandate, then the mandate would be gone for religious and non-religious employers."

The appeals court stated in their decision that companies would not have to buy an un-wanted product because they are free to do so under Obamacare and often self-insure anyway. Thus, the court saw no violation of the Commerce Clause.

"The employer mandate is no monster; rather, it is simply another example of Congress's longstanding authority to regulate employee compensation offered and paid for by employers in interstate commerce," the panel said.

The court's decision also found that Obama's healthcare bill did not infringe on Americans' First Amendment religious rights. The panel said the law allowed citizens to use a plan that does not cover abortions, except in the instance of rape, incest or to protect a mother's life.

In 2011, Richmond's 4th Circuit Court dismissed LU's case, saying it did not have the jurisdiction, but was later ordered by the Supreme Court to follow through. The Obama administration did not oppose the re-visitation.

The employer's mandate would require companies with more than 50 full-time employees to provide healthcare, otherwise face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, per day.

The Obama administration attempted to have all pending legal action against the bill nullified, but LU's is allowed to continue because it challenges the full scope.