Appeals court dismisses Va. suits on health care act

RICHMOND

Two Virginia-based lawsuits that challenge aspects of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care act were tossed Thursday in separate federal appeals court rulings, moving questions of the act's constitutionality closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In one opinion, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower federal court's decision that Congress lacks the authority to require people to obtain health insurance.

But the basis for that appellate decision appears limited - the judges rejected Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's argument that Virginia has legal standing to sue in defense of a state law exempting Virginians from such mandates but did not address many of the underlying legal issues central to the lawsuit.

"Because we hold that Virginia lacks standing, we cannot reach the question of whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the individual mandate," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the court's opinion.

The judges - two are Obama appointees and one was chosen by President Bill Clinton - also reasoned that the state's sovereignty isn't threatened simply because Virginia has a law at odds with a federal law unpopular in some circles.

Accepting Virginia's standing argument, the opinion further noted, could "convert the federal judiciary into a forum for the vindication of a state's generalized grievances about the conduct of government."

It was a disappointing defeat for Cuccinelli, who last year prevailed in the opening round of this fight when U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce by adopting the insurance requirement.

Left unresolved by the decision is the key question of whether Congress has "the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen," said Cuccinelli, who plans an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"Contrary to the court's suggestion, this suit has always been about vindicating the power of the Virginia General Assembly to legislate about a subject that has historically been viewed as falling within the areas the Constitution left to the states," he added, emphasizing that states by design function as "constitutional watchdogs."

Thursday's appellate court ruling on the health care act is among several decisions on the subject issued in recent months.

In June, the 6th U.S. Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld the legal provision requiring people to buy health insurance. Judges in the 11th U.S. Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled the reverse last month, striking down the mandate as unconstitutional. Both were split decisions.

The second Virginia lawsuit was brought by Liberty University. In a 2-1 vote, the appeals court said it lacks jurisdiction to block a tax, meaning it's too early for the Lynchburg-based Christian institution to challenge penalties that haven't been assessed.

"So, essentially, what the court is saying is that you can't file a lawsuit until 2014, when the mandate goes into effect," said Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mathew Staver, who plans an appeal to the Supreme Court, from which he anticipates a decision by summer.

Although the court's decision focused on tax issues, Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a concurring opinion, and Judge Andre M. Davis, in dissent, each wrote that they believe the disputed coverage mandates are within the scope of congressional power.

The Liberty case is one of several that appear destined for the nation's highest court, though it's unclear whether the justices would bundle the cases together, address them individually, or focus on a particular case as a way to resolve the weighty legal issues raised by the various lawsuits.

University of Richmond law Professor Carl Tobias thinks the Florida-based challenge in the 11th Circuit could be the lead case because it's "a better vehicle for the purposes of the Supreme Court," given its broad legal scope and multiple-state roster of plaintiffs.

However it happens, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell - who considers the health care law flawed - is eager for a resolution to the uncertainty caused by contrasting federal court rulings.

"States and businesses continue to expend time and money and languish in uncertainty as they try to come into compliance with a law that may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional," the governor said in a statement, adding that "America needs finality in this case."

Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com

____

Document: The court's ruling