The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said today that Virginia has no standing to challenge Obamacare’s individual mandate. In a second ruling issued at the same time, the Richmond court also said that Liberty University can’t challenge the law before the mandate goes into effect in 2014.
The latest rulings focused only on judicial procedure and not on the merits of the law, leaving a split decision between the Sixth and Eleventh circuits on the actual constitutionality of the individual mandate. (The Sixth Circuit in Michigan said the individual mandate can stand because it is important to the overall working of the law. The Eleventh Circuit — in which 26 states are challenging the law – disagreed and said the individual mandate is not only unconstitutional but “is breathtaking in its expansive scope.”)
In today’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit appeals court did not address the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate: “Because we hold that Virginia lacks standing, we cannot reach the question of whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the individual mandate,” the judges wrote. There was no dissenting opinion.
This is not a victory for the Obama administration. But neither does it help those opposed to the law.
In the barrage of cases against the unpopular health-overhaul law, the Eleventh Circuit decision in mid-August on the 26-state challenge from Florida was the most significant court ruling to date, with the panel saying the mandate is unconstitutional — a defeat for the Obama administration. The White House is weighing whether to request an en banc decision by all of the Eleventh Circuit judges in an effort to delay a U.S. Supreme Court hearing in the coming term.
Rather than basing their challenge on a state statute, as Virginia did, the 26 states base their argument on the individual mandate’s unconstitutionality as an unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.
In today’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit judges threw out the elegantly decided ruling in the Virginia case delivered last year by U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, who decided that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce by compelling people “to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction.” Judge Hudson did not strike down the whole law but determined that the individual mandate and associated provisions could be declared unconstitutional – severing the “problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.”
The Fourth Circuit did not address the merits, writing: “Article III of the Constitution confers on federal courts the power to resolve only ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ Specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) it has ‘suffered an injury in fact’; (2) there exists a ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of’; and (3) a favorable judicial ruling will ‘likely’ redress that injury.”
The court wrote: “Only if Virginia meets the burden of establishing standing does the Constitution permit a federal court to address the merits of the arguments presented. . . . Standing here turns on whether Virginia has suffered the necessary ‘injury in fact.’”
The court found that it did not, concluding “the individual mandate does not directly burden Virginia” and that it “does not threaten Virginia’s sovereign territory.”
Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli had argued that his state has standing solely because the federal health law conflicts with a state law protecting its citizens from Obamacare’s individual mandate, litigating on behalf of the rights of its citizens. The court disagreed: “When a state brings a suit seeking to protect individuals from a federal statute, it usurps this sovereign prerogative of the federal government and threatens the ‘general supremacy of federal law.’”
It continued: “Given this fact, the [Virginia statue] merely declares, without legal effect, that the federal government cannot apply insurance mandates to Virginia’s citizens. This non-binding declaration does not create any genuine conflict with the individual mandate, and thus creates no sovereign interest capable of producing injury-in-fact. . . . Given this fact, Virginia lacks the ‘personal stake’ in this case essential to ‘assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.’”
The battles now move one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm certain there are pundits, would-be pundits, bloggers, and message-board superstars all over the place now trumpeting that the 4th Circuit "upheld" Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Given this fact, the [Virginia statue] merely declares, without legal effect, that the federal government cannot apply insurance mandates to Virginia’s citizens. This non-binding declaration does not create any genuine conflict with the individual mandate, and thus creates no sovereign interest capable of producing injury-in-fact. . . . Given this fact, Virginia lacks the ‘personal stake’ in this case essential to ‘assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.’”
Uh...I'm no lawyer, but if Federal law is mandating something the Virginia Law says it can't, I'd call that a genuine conflict. I think the 4th circuit is plain wrong, and standing was determined in the initial case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Uh...I'm no lawyer, but if Federal law is mandating something the Virginia Law says it can't, I'd call that a genuine conflict."
As a matter of our constitutional law, properly enacted, constitutional federal laws trump conflicting state laws under the preemption doctrine. The 4th Circuit's reasoning therefore begs the question: is Obamacare constitutional? If so, it can trump Va. law. If not, it cannot. This is the point the Va. AG made in the press release someone else posted here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) it has ‘suffered an injury in fact’; (2) there exists a ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of’; and (3) a favorable judicial ruling will ‘likely’ redress that injury."
Isn't Virginia (and the 25 other states who are a party to the suit) incurring costs to prepare implementation of the Obamacare mandate? Isn't this the injury needed? If this is the case then items 2 and 3 are obvious. What am I missing here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat you're missing is the obvious conflict in interest of one branch of the fed govt sitting in judgement of another branch of the fed govt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseParticularly when the 3 sitting in judgment are all Democrats, and 2 of the 3 were appointed by Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWithout being too "flip", the problem with the court is that the justices are LAWYERS. If a state doesnt' have standing to sue here who the hell does?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to support what the 4th Circuit did, but just to attempt to answer the questions raised by the previous comments:
- The state would definitely have standing to challenge the Medicaid provisions, which impose duties and hardships on the state. This is how the 26 states in the Florida litigation gained standing. And individual taxpayers would definitely have standing to challenge the individual mandate, since it imposes obligations on them. That's how the 11th Circuit got to the constitutional question of the mandate - because the individual plaintiffs and the business association who are plaintiffs had standing to bring those claims.
I'm not saying that the 4th Circuit got it right or wrong with respect to Virginia's lawsuit. Just wanted to help clarify today's decision for the non-lawyers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't they argue on 10th Amendment grounds? I'd love to see a State Attourney General ask a federal judge to define precisely what, if anything, is still reserved to the States and the People.
The Commerce Clause has been used for decades by the federal government to usurp the power of the States. There is literally NOTHING left to the states, the feds have usurped all of their power.
The federal government should only be able to regulate the actual interstate commerce of an industry, but not the industry itself. For instance, the US Congress could, under the commerce clause, forbid states from charging a special tax for out of state customers of its businesses. Or, it could prohibit them from setting up tolls on interstate highways that (as in DE or MD) are designed to fleece out of state travellers that briefly pass through the state. That's it.
They should not be able to regulate every detail of every business or individual that engages in any commerce of any sort (this is pretty much what current jurisprudence allows). This massively expansive interpretation simply means that Congress is all-powerful and the states and individuals have no power or rights at all.
If we are to remain a free society (to the extent that we still are), we MUST roll back the judicial interpretation of the commerce clause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse+1
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe arrogance of the decision is appalling. And that's the whole point of a SCOTUS showdown, although the Keio decision and MI law school ruling gives pause.
Attorney General Cuccinelli is fighting back and vows to appeal the Fourth Circuit ruling. Here is the statement he issued this afternoon:
Cuccinelli expresses disappointment in Fourth Circuit’s ruling in health care case
RICHMOND, VA (September 8, 2011)— Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli responded today to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Virginia’s lawsuit against the federal government’s health care reform act.
“Obviously, we are disappointed in the ruling. 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,” said Cuccinelli.
In summarizing the ruling, Cuccinelli noted that, by resting its decision on an alleged lack of standing by the commonwealth to even bring its lawsuit, the court dismissed Virginia’s claimed injury as illusory.
“Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this suit has always been about vindicating the power of the Virginia General Assembly to legislate about a subject that has historically been viewed as falling within the areas the Constitution left to the states. Health, safety, and welfare issues have long been recognized as being part of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said.
Cuccinelli noted that the court’s stated reasons placed the ruling’s reasoning at odds with constitutional design. “In rejecting Virginia’s right to bring the action, the court said that allowing such suits would allow the states to serve as ‘roving constitutional watchdogs.’ This was exactly a role that the Founding Fathers planned for the states to have. As James Madison wrote, under the Constitution, ‘the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments…Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments [state and federal] will control each other…’”
Cuccinelli continued, “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.”
Cuccinelli vowed to appeal the court’s ruling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecrypticguise is dead-right: A state does not have standing to challenge a federal law? Why doesn't a judge ever rule that the federal government does not have standing to challenge a state (Hussein Obama vs Arizona SB1070, for example)?
Anyway, the Fourth Circuit's logic proves, for the 50,000th time, the corruption of our courts. They are saying that if the federal government enacts a law, and that law contains a component that is unconstitutional, it can stand as long as the unconstitutional part is necessary for the overall law to function as intended. So, as taxpayers, we are paying leftist ideologues, posing as legitimate judges, to impose a radical-leftist agenda on us. This is how to destroy peoples' respect for the law. But then my respect for the federal government had already died. And in our present era, the more people whose respect for the federal government dies, the more progress we are making toward the light at the end of the tunnel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is not a victory for the Obama administration. But neither does it help those opposed to the law."
Regardless of whether the decision is correct and regardless of what happens down the road with judicial challenges to the law, it's silly to say that this decision is not a "victory for the Obama Administration". A suit was filed challenging the law, the Obama Administration sought to have the suit dismissed and the suit was dismissed.
That's a victory - period.
Argue that the decision is wrong. Predict that the decision will be overturned. Predict that at the end of the day - even in as a result of one of the other legal challenges - the entire Affordable Care Act will be tossed out by the Supreme Court.
But don't pretend that a victory is not a victory just because you don't like it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo the extent it's a "victory," it's a successful procedural maneuver. It has no bearing at all on the actual question of the case.
This isn't even like getting your opponent disqualified and winning a match by default. There's no match, period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a defeat for the government. As one of the attorneys involved in another litigation against the individual mandate, the government was hoping to receive from a panel of three Democrat appointed judges (a dream panel for the government) a decision on the merits in favor of constitutionality on the Commerce Clause argument. While the government will be pleased that someone, somewhere finally bought their taxing and spending clause argument, I think they know this issue will be decided by SCOTUS based on the Commerce Clause. And on this front, the 4th Circuit failed to provide the government with their hoped for rebutal to the 11th Circuit's very well reasoned opinion that the mandate exceeds congressional authority under the Commerce Clause.
I would also say that the 4th Circuit is probably correct that Virginia lacks standing to challenge the individual madate. There are plaintiffs out there who are better suited to challenge the individual mandate than a state government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe companion case of Liberty University v. Geithner was also issued today. It did not involve the standing issue that existed in Va. v Sebelius. The court held 2-1 that it lacked jurisdiction. It is long,with all three judges writing separate opinions. Although the court did not reach the merits of the individual mandate, two of the three judges, including the one who dissented on jurisdiction, wrote that if they had reached the merits they would have upheld the mandate under the Taxing Clause.
So there is more involved here than just the state standing issue. With this particular panel, Va would have lost if the court had decided the merits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is important to keep in mind why the 4th Circuit ruled against Virginia. Virginia lacked standing to sue because the Affordable Care Act imposes no burden on the STATE of Virginia, only on the PEOPLE of Virginia. The people will have standing to sue, but in my view they should have standing only when the law has actually taken effect. Courts should not rule on things that have not happened yet, and ACA's individual mandate has not taken effect yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a victory for those challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate because we avoided a panel of three Democrat appointed judges from ruling the the mandate was, in fact, constitutional under the Commerce Clause. No one really buys (and no one believes that a majority of the SCOTUS will adopt) the argument that Congress acted pursuant to its taxing and spending power. This panel could have done some real damage by providing a rebuttal to the 11th Circuit opinion. As it stands, the 11th Circuit opinion is the most impressively reasoned opinion, to date, on either side of the argument. The 11th's argument will be the vehicle gets Justice Kennedy on board to form a majority striking the individual mandate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe courts are one possibility to help destroy the central tyranny's latest effort to collectivize America. But, as this case demonstrates courts are not reliable defenders of liberty. The decision has much in common with the waiting lines BO-Care will create. It allows the cancer to spread to the point where it is too late to cure.
Going to court was the right thing to do, but it makes me think of the scene in The Untouchables where the wise old cop asks the naive Elliot Ness what he's willing to do to get Capone. Ness spews out some idealistic gobbledygook about everything the law allows. The tough cop responds, "And then what?"
Luckily, Jefferson and Madison already helped answer this question. In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions they suggested that states were the last resort for thwarting an out of control central government. The reasoning was:
(1) The states (and the people) having created the federal government via the Constitution; the federal government was a creature of this "contract" and not a party to it.
(2) Therefore, the federal government was not the final arbiter to determine when it was operating outside its constitutional authority.
(3) When the states determined a federal law was out-of-bounds, they could consider it null and void and without force.
(4) Finally, the states could refuse to cooperate with federal officials attempting to enforce such law and also actively thwart such officials.
This is the answer to the question, "And then what?" if the courts ultimately fail to stop Leviathan. A handful of states saying, "Sorry Supreme Court, you got that wrong!" would create a crisis that might finally expose our naked emperor and his power grubbing prince-lings in the other branches of government. The dirty little secret that statists hope we don't discover is this: They need us to assist in our own demise by acquiescing to their demands. If we refuse, they lose.
While this might introduce a certain element of anarchy into our political system, I suggest this is not the fault of those opposing BO-Care (not to mention other unconstitutional acts). Rather, the problem arose when elected officials and their judicial accomplices -- all sworn to uphold uphold the Constitution -- instead decided to work around it; twisting it into a charter of positive liberties subject to the whim of the central tyranny, when our forebears intended to assure islands of government power in a sea of individual liberty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, Jefferson and Madison were wrong ... the people (meeting in "convention" ~ Article VII) and not the states ratified the Constitution and 'created' the Federal government. Only the people can determine (a la John Locke and Jefferson's Declaration of Independence) when that government becomes destructive of the ends it was created for.
States are, however, promised a "Republican form of government" in Article IV, Sec 4. States could, and should in my opinion, be mounting challenges to Obamacare under this clause. Here the argument is not about the individual mandate, which is a "commerce clause" issue, but rather about the Federal government "commandeering" state governments for the purpose of achieving national ends. There is already case law... NY v US and Printz v US that supports the idea that the Feds can't do this.
Virginia should have argued that Obamacare unconstitutionally violated their right to a republican form of government...
Courts tend not to rule on this issue, but it does set the terms of a constitutional showdown between the state and Feds that can be resolved in the public / political sphere.
If the Feds ignore a state's claim under the republican clause, the people of that state have a right to meet in convention to discuss... taking actions against the Federal government... up to and including declaring independence.
Let's stop talking about nullification and secession. Both are built upon the always poor logic that states built the Federal government. Since the people clearly ratified the Constitution... the states only resort is to the republican clause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse