NU Online News Service, Aug. 2, 3:59 p.m. EDT
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has won a chance to get a hearing on arguments that new federal health coverage ownership rules are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson, a judge in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., has ruled against Obama administration efforts to have the suit, Cuccinelli vs. Sebelius, (Civil Action Number 3:10CV188-HEH) dismissed.
Mr. Cuccinelli filed the suit March 23. He argued on behalf of Virginia that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a component of the Affordable Care Act, goes beyond the outer limits of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce, because "the failure–or refusal–of [Virginia] citizens to elect to purchase health insurance is not 'economic activity' and therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause," Judge Hudson wrote in an opinion explaining his ruling.
Mr. Cuccinelli also has argued that PPACA Section 1501 conflicts with the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.
The defendant, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, told the court it should dismiss the suit because PPACA Section 1501 is the "central ingredient of a complex health care regulatory scheme," based on the believe that, at some point, every individual will need medical services, and that all individuals subject to the coverage ownership requirement ought to help reduce the amount of uncompensated medical services by purchasing health coverage.
Ms. Sebelius also has argued that PPACA Section 1501 is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because it relies on the authority of Congress to use its taxing and spending power under the General Welfare Act, and that the question is not yet ripe for review because the PPACA Section 1501 will not take effect until 2014.
Judge Hudson has ruled that Virginia has standing to bring a suit, that the case is ripe for review because Virginia will have to start implementing it in the near future, and that the questions about congressional authority are reasonable ones.
"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," the judge said. "Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue."
Because some authorities appear to support the arguments on both sides of the case, the court "cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action," the judge said.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Allison Bell
Allison Bell, a senior reporter at ThinkAdvisor and BenefitsPRO, previously was an associate editor at National Underwriter Life & Health. She has a bachelor's degree in economics from Washington University in St. Louis and a master's degree in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. She can be reached through X at @Think_Allison.
