Civil Rights – PPACA – Individual Mandate — State Challenge – No Standing

Commonwealth v. Sebelius (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0958, 33 pp.) (Motz, J.) No. 11-1057, Sept. 8, 2011; USDC at Richmond, Va. (Hudson, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full-text opinion.

Holding: The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have standing to challenge the “individual mandate” to maintain health insurance, a provision of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a Virginia statute that purports to limit enforcement of the federal statute does not confer standing; the 4th Circuit vacates the district court decision that found standing and struck the individual mandate as unconstitutional.

The Commonwealth of Virginia challenges one provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. The provision in question requires, with limited exceptions, that individual taxpayers who fail to “maintain” adequate health insurance coverage pay a “penalty.” Virginia contends Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate.

Virginia maintains the conflict between this provision and a newly enacted Virginia statute, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, provides it with standing to pursue this action. The district court found this asserted conflict gave Virginia standing to sue, and the court declared the challenged provision unconstitutional.

We hold that Virginia, the sole plaintiff here, lacks standing to bring this action. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This case differs from Liberty Univ. v. Geithner [see digest below], and every one of the many other cases challenging the Act in a critical respect: the sole provision challenged here – the individual mandate – imposes no obligations on the sole plaintiff, Virginia.

Contrary to Virginia’s arguments, the mere existence of a state law like the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act does not license a state to mount a judicial challenge to any federal statute with which the state law assertedly conflicts. Rather, only when a federal law interferes with a state’s exercise of its sovereign “power to create and enforce a legal code” does it inflict on the state the requisite injury-in-fact.

Here, 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 VHCFA reflects no exercise of sovereign power, for Virginia lacks the sovereign authority to nullify federal law. The individual mandate does not affect Virginia’s ability to enforce the VHCFA. Rather, the Constitution itself withholds from Virginia the power to enforce the VHCFA against the federal government.

To permit a state to litigate whenever it enacts a statute declaring its opposition to federal law, as Virginia has in the VHCFA, would convert the federal judiciary into a “forum” for the vindication of a state’s generalized grievances about the conduct of government. If we were to adopt Virginia’s standing theory, each state could become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts; no issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state’s power to litigate in federal court.

Vacated and remanded.