Appeals court dismisses Va. challenges to health-care law

 A Richmond-based federal appeals court has dismissed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul, cases brought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and by Liberty University.

“We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to that court, with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the three-judge panel ruled in a unanimous decision.

In March 2010, Cuccinelli challenged the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, arguing that Congress had overstepped its authority in enacting the individual insurance mandate provision of the law, which would require every American to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty.

Cuccinelli won the first round in U.S. District Court last fall. But on appeal by the U.S. Justice Department, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. District Court of Appeals dismissed the case, saying Virginia did not have grounds to challenge the federal statute.

Cuccinelli has previously said that he would not ask the full appeals court to rehear the matter but instead would appeal an adverse ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
"Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling," he said in a statement.
 
"Our disappointment not only stems from the fact that the court ruled against us, but also that the court did not even reach the merits on the key question of Virginia's lawsuit -- whether Congress has a power never before recognized in American history: the power to force one citizen to purchase a good or service from another citizen."
 
Cuccinelli had argued that because the individual mandate was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power, a state law that says Virginians cannot be compelled to buy health insurance should prevail. Virginia lawmakers passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act before enactment of the federal law.
 
But in the strongly worded ruling today, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz dismissed the notion that the state's law "confers a sovereign interest" to Virginia to challenge the individual mandate.
 
"The mere existence of a state law like the VHCFA does not license a state to mount a judicial challenge to any federal statute with which the state law assertedly conflicts," she wrote.
 
“…The VHCFA regulates nothing and provides for the administration of no state program. Instead, it simply purports to immunize Virginia citizens from federal law.”
 
"The only apparent function of the VHCFA is to declare Virginia's opposition to a federal insurance mandate,” the judge continued. “And, in fact, the timing of the VHCFA, along with the statements accompanying its passage, make clear that Virginia officials enacted the statute for precisely this declaratory purpose."
 
Said Cuccinelli: "Not only does the court's opinion reject the role of the states envisioned by the Constitution, it dismisses an act of the Virginia General Assembly -- the Health Care Freedom Act -- as a mere pretense or pretext. It is unfortunate that the court would be so dismissive of a piece of legislation that passed both houses of a divided legislature by overwhelming margins with broad, bipartisan support."
 
The Justice Department said in a statement: “We welcome the dismissal of these two challenges to the Affordable Care Act."
 
"We also continue to appreciate the rulings of other courts on the merits upholding the constitutionality of the Act. Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed as well," the statement continued.
 
"We will continue to vigorously defend the health-care reform statute in any litigation challenging it, and we believe we will prevail.”
 
The mixed results of various legal challenges to the health-care act make it likely the issue will be heard by the Supreme Court. If the court takes the case in its next term, it would likely issue a ruling sometime in the spring of 2012.
 
President Bill Clinton appointed Motz to the bench in 1994. Obama nominated the two other judges on the panel.

Today's decision is the second appellate court ruling affirming the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law, but an appeals court in Atlanta struck down the insurance mandate.