Challenge to 'Obamacare' Struck Down in Virginia
In what may legal experts say is just a hiccup en route to a Supreme Court fight, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that the state of Virginia does not have the legal right to sue the federal government over the Obama administration’s 2010 health care law which requires Americans to purchase health insurance.
“Virginia, the sole plaintiff here, lacks standing to bring this action. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the 4th Circuit wrote in its decision.
The court also said that that since the health care law is an individual mandate which does not directly affect the state of Virginia, their complaint is without grounds.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
“The sole provision challenged here - the individual mandate - imposes no obligations” on the state itself, the court said.
A suit filed by Liberty University was also struck down for the same reason.
Virginia argued that the federal law conflicted with a state law that said Virginia residents could not be forced to buy health insurance. However, they passed the law too late, according to the court.
“Virginia filed this action on March 23, 2010, the same day that the President signed the Affordable Care Act into law. The Governor of Virginia did not sign the VHFCA into law until the next day,” Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in the opinion.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who separated his state’s case from a larger suit with 26 other states, argued that the federal law conflicted with state law, giving him standing to sue. However, Cuccinelli’s solo performance has been criticized as the reason why he failed.
Below the Beltway blogger, Doug Mataconis, tweeted, “Ken Cuccinelli decided to go it alone instead of joining the multi-state lawsuit in Florida. And he just got his butt handed to him.”
According to the National Journal, Diana Gribbon Motz offered critics of what has become known as “Obamacare” a way forward. “Virginia’s litigation approach might well diverge from that of an individual to whom the challenged mandate actually does apply,” she wrote in the opinion.
“In sum, the significance of the questions at issue here only heightens the importance of waiting for an appropriate case to reach the merits. This is not such a case.”
