Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius
Encyclopedia
Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius is a court case in which Virginia attorney general
Ken Cuccinelli
sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
over the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
. The case is expected to be a major test for healthcare reform, as the suit was filed in a court known for its rapid handling of cases
.
that requires individuals to carry insurance was unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Cuccinelli's lawsuit is separate from the joint suit filed by 13 other attorney generals around the same time. One of the reasons that Cuccinelli chose to pursue a separate action was the fact that Virginia had a law entitled the "Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act" (VHCFA) which specifically prohibits the government from mandating insurance coverage.
On May 24, 2010 the Obama administration filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, arguing that states cannot escape federal law simply by passing state laws that contravene federal ones. Cuccinelli filed a counter-motion on June 7, rebutting federal claims and asserting that health insurance was not commerce as intended by the Constitution, and, thus, was not subject to regulation by Congress. A hearing was held on July 2, where similar arguments were put forth by both sides. Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama administration's motion to dismiss on August 2 on the grounds that the notion of government forcing individuals to buy a product had not yet been fully decided in court.
, in a decision issued by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz
, overturned Judge Hudson's decision. The opinion of the 4th Circuit Court was that The Commonwealth of Virginia lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
. Her reasoning behind the decision rests that Virginia's VHCFA is not a proper exercise of "sovereign power." Simply it attempts to immunize Virginia citizens from Federal Law, without any enforcement or action taken by The Commonwealth. Referring to
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986), where it was shown that “a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute. (emphasis added)". She found that simply creating a law to use as a "smokescreen" for the guise of challenging a Federal Law, did not constitute standing. Thus has remanded the case to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia with instructions to dismiss the case.
Attorney General of Virginia
The Attorney General of Virginia is an executive office in the Government of Virginia. Attorneys General are elected for a four-year term in the year following a presidential election . There are no term limits restricting the number of terms someone can serve as Attorney General...
Ken Cuccinelli
Ken Cuccinelli
Kenneth Thomas 'Ken' Cuccinelli II is a U.S. politician and the Attorney General of Virginia. From 2002 until January 16, 2010 he was a Republican member of the Senate of Virginia, representing the 37th district in Fairfax County...
sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Kathleen Sebelius
Kathleen Sebelius is an American politician currently serving as the 21st Secretary of Health and Human Services. She was the second female Governor of Kansas from 2003 to 2009, the Democratic respondent to the 2008 State of the Union address, and chair-emerita of the Democratic Governors...
over the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress...
. The case is expected to be a major test for healthcare reform, as the suit was filed in a court known for its rapid handling of cases
Rocket docket
A rocket docket refers to a court or other tribunal that is noted for its speedy disposition of cases and controversies that come before it, often by maintaining strict adherence to the law as pertains to filing deadlines, etc....
.
Preliminary Stages
On March 23, 2010, Cuccinelli filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the provision of Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress...
that requires individuals to carry insurance was unconstitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Cuccinelli's lawsuit is separate from the joint suit filed by 13 other attorney generals around the same time. One of the reasons that Cuccinelli chose to pursue a separate action was the fact that Virginia had a law entitled the "Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act" (VHCFA) which specifically prohibits the government from mandating insurance coverage.
On May 24, 2010 the Obama administration filed a motion to dismiss
Involuntary dismissal
Involuntary dismissal is the termination of a court case despite the plaintiff's objection.In United States Federal courts, involuntary dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41....
the lawsuit, arguing that states cannot escape federal law simply by passing state laws that contravene federal ones. Cuccinelli filed a counter-motion on June 7, rebutting federal claims and asserting that health insurance was not commerce as intended by the Constitution, and, thus, was not subject to regulation by Congress. A hearing was held on July 2, where similar arguments were put forth by both sides. Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama administration's motion to dismiss on August 2 on the grounds that the notion of government forcing individuals to buy a product had not yet been fully decided in court.
December 13, 2010 ruling
On December 13, 2010, Judge Hudson ruled that the individual mandate portion of the health care bill was unconstitutional. However, he did not block implementation of the law while the case works its way through the court system. The decision was appealed by the Justice Department. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request for expedited process from both parties. A court hearing is currently scheduled between May 10 and May 13, 2011 in Richmond. On Feb. 3, Cuccinelli announced that he intended to file an appeal directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the appellate court level; this request was denied by the Supreme Court.September 8, 2011 ruling
On September 8, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal court located in Richmond, Virginia, with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:*District of Maryland*Eastern District of North Carolina...
, in a decision issued by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz
Diana Gribbon Motz
Diana Jane Gribbon Motz is a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.- Early life and education :...
, overturned Judge Hudson's decision. The opinion of the 4th Circuit Court was that The Commonwealth of Virginia lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases....
. Her reasoning behind the decision rests that Virginia's VHCFA is not a proper exercise of "sovereign power." Simply it attempts to immunize Virginia citizens from Federal Law, without any enforcement or action taken by The Commonwealth. Referring to
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986), where it was shown that “a State has standing to defend the constitutionality of its statute. (emphasis added)". She found that simply creating a law to use as a "smokescreen" for the guise of challenging a Federal Law, did not constitute standing. Thus has remanded the case to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia with instructions to dismiss the case.