Lawyers for the Department of Justice have filed a brief opposing Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's bid to have Virginia's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul bypass appellate court review and be heard directly by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Especially given the court of appeals' imminent consideration of this case, there is no basis for short-circuiting the normal course of appellate review," according to the brief, filed with the high court on behalf of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
A year ago, Virginia filed suit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, arguing that Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution by requiring nearly every American to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty. Cuccinelli argued that a newly enacted state statute declaring that Virginians could not be compelled to purchase insurance should prevail.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond ruled in Virginia's favor last December, and the case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Currently, Virginia's case, as well as a case filed by Liberty University, are scheduled to be heard on May 10 by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. A case filed by Florida on behalf of more than two dozen other states is also scheduled for an expedited hearing the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25.
In February, Cuccinelli petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the matter directly, arguing that Virginia, as well as other states, would benefit from a decision sooner than later because they are required to "devote considerable resources now," to meet various requirements of the act.
In its brief, the federal government argues that the timing of Virginia's petition would not considerably expedite the process because it could not reasonably be heard by the Supreme Court until its next term, which would not convene until months after the appellate proceedings.
It also states that the individual insurance mandate provision of the law is not scheduled to take effect until 2014, which will give the courts ample time to resolve the issue through the normal process.
"The constitutionality of the minimum-coverage provision is undoubtedly an issue of great public importance," the brief states. "This case is not, however, one of the rare cases that justifies 'deviation from normal appellate practice' and 'requires immediate determination in this Court.' "
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement