Judge Allows Healthcare Lawsuit to Move Forward

A federal judge in Virginia has declined to dismiss a challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, writing that each side should have an opportunity to make its case fully.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia issued the 32-page ruling today. His opinion denies a motion by U.S. Justice Department lawyers to toss the lawsuit, which was brought in March by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli II (R).

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue,” Hudson wrote. He added that each side has “some authority” behind its position.

Cuccinelli’s case is one of two federal legal challenges to the healthcare overhaul and its requirement that individuals buy insurance or face a penalty. The other, brought by a group of other state attorneys general, is pending in the Northern District of Florida.

The Virginia case has attracted a substantial amount of amicus attention. Angela France of the Alexandria office of PCT Law Group is representing a coalition of supporters of the law, including the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for American Progress. Mayer Brown partner Andrew Nicely authored a brief on behalf of a group of law professors supporting the law. Colby May, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, is representing Republican congressmen opposed to the law.

UPDATE (12:53 p.m.): In a statement, Cuccinelli said he was pleased with the ruling. “The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause,” he said.

UPDATE (1:04 p.m.): Democratic former solicitor general Walter Dellinger, head of the appellate practice at O'Melveny & Myers, noted in a conference call with reporters that the decision is procedural. “It’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t decide much at all,” he said. He added that the individual mandate is in the “heartland” of the government's regulation of a $2.5 billion insurance market, and so falls within Congress' powers.

UPDATE (2:02 p.m.): A hearing on summary judgment is scheduled for Oct. 18.

Comments

[jm herskovits]

Although our country has had even a civil war to promote the principle that we are a country for ALL the people, once again the "hooray for me and screw you" crowd has raised its ugly head!

[Michael South]

@fedup:

I hear you--but what makes it ok to take your money to bribe states to adopt national education standards? What makes it ok to take your money to fund the bombing in Bosnia? Etc. You are right--if they make you buy something your liberty _is_ gone. It's been gone for a long time. Maybe this will wake some people up...but we're way, way behind on this fight. It will take a long time to win back all that complacency and the siren song of supposedly "good causes" have cost us over the years.

You fund a bankrupt ponzi retirement scheme.

You fund a hugely corrupt medical assistance scheme.

You fund artists that create art that no one wants enough to pay for.

You fund bazillions of little projects that have no accountability, and when you point this out they create another office that you fund that is supposed to fix the problem.

It's been "ENOUGH" for a long, long time.

[fedup]

What makes it O.K to take my money to pay other people's medical bills? I work, I save, I give to charity but it should be my choice to give not the government's right to take. On top of that now they want to take my $$ to pay healthcare for illegals.

What will they demand we buy next, specific types of food, mandatory clothing??? Really what next??? If you let them make you buy something your liberty is gone!!!!

Enough, get your hands out of my wallet and go buy votes with your own damn $$$!!!