Va. national health care reform lawsuit clears 1st hurdle

The Roanoke Times ^ | 8/2/10 | Michael Sluss

[ClayinVA]

RICHMOND -- A federal judge has denied the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit challenging the health care reform bill passed by Congress, setting the stage for additional legal wrangling in the high-profile case.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson's decision was released this morning, a month after lawyers from the Justice Department and the Virginia attorney general's office argued over the motion in Hudson's Richmond courtroom.

[ClayinVA]

Looks like Virginia has Standing to challenge Obamacare for now, this looks like it is going to trial.

[iceskater]

Richmond ping for our AG.

[gattaca]

Awesome

[Puppage]

Obamacare for now, this looks like it is going to trial.

I'll believe it when I see it. Not a moment sooner.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Judge appointed by GWB. I know that I have a hard time with stinker candidates in the republican party, primarily John McCain for president in 2008. But, the party does make a difference in judicial nominations. Such as the Arizona case’s judge was appointed by Clinton.

[USMCPOP]

Goobamint sues goobamint: Creating jobs for lawyers.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Now Obama’s thugs will use their power to cherry pick a radical judge

As this judge is not a dem appointee (AKA an Obama knee pad raical)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_E._Hudson

[HokieMom]

Statement of Governor Bob McDonnell on Health Care Ruling

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=297

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

Good for Virginia! Obamacare is wrong in so many ways. Even if they lose this battle, they are still going to ruin health care insurance as we have known it. I found out last week that my personal health policy is going up 35% a year! Thanks Nancy and Harry!

[ForGod'sSake]

Now Obama’s thugs will use their power to cherry pick a radical judge

Next stop: Appellate court for this district if not SCOTUS. SCOTUS could actually have original jurisdiction since it's an action between a/the state/s and the federales. Why that wasn't pursued, I don't know.

[The Pack Knight]

I doubt it will be going to trial, per se. It just passed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It will now go to discovery and will probably be resolved by summary judgment, since I don’t imagine there are any real fact issues here.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Goobamint sues goobamint: Creating jobs for lawyers.

Would you rather see Obamacare implemented without a fight?

[The Pack Knight]

Ping to the E.D. Va. ruling on the 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in the Virginia Obamacare challenge, Virginia v. Sebelius. The opinion is here.

On the substantive issues, the judge kept to the low bar of legal sufficiency necessary to survive a 12(b)(6) and seemed careful to avoid making any definitive comments on the legal merits. He merely recited each side's arguments and found that Virginia advanced a "plausible claim with an arguable legal basis."

As predicted, Sebelius relied primarily on Raich, Wickard on the Commerce Clause issue, while Virginia relied on Lopez and Morrison. The judge seemed a bit skeptical of Sebelius's taxing powers argument.

It seems to me that Sebelius's best argument will be the Necessary and Proper Clause, and, troublingly but predictably, United States v. Comstock - which, with its broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, was cited in the opinion. Virginia seemed to do a good job of trying to distinguish this case from Comstock and use the dicta in Comstock to bolster its own argument, but I'm concerned that it won't be enough.

I'm becoming concerned that, for all the good C.J. Roberts has done, his joining the majority opinion in Comstock rather than writing a more narrow concurrence like Alito and Kennedy might have done a lot of damage to the cause of limiting the power of the federal government. If he'd done that, then the majority's broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause would have only been a plurality opinion.

After reading the opinion, though, I am cautiously optimistic that Virginia will prevail in summary judgment here. What do you think?

[OldDeckHand]

"After reading the opinion, though, I am cautiously optimistic that Virginia will prevail in summary judgment here. What do you think? "

I can't pretend that I've argued (or worked on) any 10th Amendment case before, BUT, the judge certainly elucidated my primary concern with the law when he says this...

"“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,”

I think Virginia has one of the better cases, or perhaps even the best case to pursue because of the laws they've recently enacted that surround this issue. There's a conflict between those laws and this law, which generally means there's a case, and this judge felt likewise. Like you, I'm encouraged by this ruling and the judge's framing of the central legal questions.

I'm eager to see what Randy Barnett has to say on this decision. He's definitely one of the scholars that - IMHO - that has the better command of the law as it applies to Obamacare.

[OldDeckHand]

"It will now go to discovery and will probably be resolved by summary judgment, since I don’t imagine there are any real fact issues here."

No question.

[USMCPOP]

“Would you rather see Obamacare implemented without a fight? “

Nope. Just sayin’.

[Jonah Vark]

The Aug 3 election is very important to Missourians and the entire nation. If you have friends or family members who live in Missouri, please contact them and tell them to vote YES on Proposition C.

The President and Congress have given us a health care reform package that will force people into government-defined health plans and penalize them for paying for services with cash!

Missouri’s Proposition C, on the August 3 primary ballot, will protect us from those government mandates by expressly stating that the government may not “penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.”

Furthermore, the August 3 vote is the FIRST TIME any voters in the country will have the opportunity to vote yes in order to protect their freedom from government regulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH6a-kEwVas&feature=player_embedded

[The Pack Knight]

I think Virginia has one of the better cases, or perhaps even the best case to pursue because of the laws they've recently enacted that surround this issue. There's a conflict between those laws and this law, which generally means there's a case, and this judge felt likewise.

Ilya Somin at Volokh seems to agree that this judge's reliance on the conflict with state law as the basis for standing has negative implications for many of the other state suits. Since few other states have a statute like the Health Care Freedom Act which directly contradicts the federal statute, it may be a bit harder for them to assert standing.

Virginia's is one of the narrower suits, however, and does not implicate the 10th Amendment, but merely the enumerated powers doctrine. The Florida case, which also includes a number of other states joined as plaintiffs plus the National Federation of Independent Businesses, is broader in that it doesn't just attack the individual mandate.

The most intriguing challenge it raises does involve the 10th Amendment. In fact, it deals with one of the few areas where the 10th Amendment has actually been held to have any force, the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. Because they are asserting many of ObamaCare's provisions (such as the state exchanges) commandeer state government, they will almost certainly be able to assert standing on that claim so long as the court finds that it has merit.

That may be an even more interesting case. Oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss is currently set for 14 September. Luckily, it doesn't look like Orly Taitz is going to be allowed to continue to cock up the works by filing endless motions to intervene. Judge Vinson ordered "In order to save time and conserve judicial resources, any and all future Motions to Intervene that do not satisfy the legal standard set forth above and in my previous Order will be summarily denied."

[R. Scott]

Yes!

[Corin Stormhands]

Hudson had prior (not judicial) appointments by Reagan and George H.W.Bush