Market Snapshot
  • U.S.
  • Europe
  • Asia
Ticker Volume Price Price Delta
DJIA 12,580.70 +125.86 1.01%
S&P 500 1,332.42 +14.60 1.11%
Nasdaq 2,870.99 +33.46 1.18%
Ticker Volume Price Price Delta
STOXX 50 2,160.31 +12.39 0.58%
FTSE 100 5,391.14 +34.80 0.65%
DAX 6,396.84 +73.65 1.16%
Ticker Volume Price Price Delta
Nikkei 8,657.08 +63.93 0.74%
TOPIX 727.03 +5.92 0.82%
Hang Seng 19,055.50 +254.47 1.35%
Gold 1,557.00 -0.90%
EUR-USD 1.2504 0.0070%
Nasdaq 2,870.99 +1.18%
DJIA 12,580.70 +1.01%
S&P 500 1,332.42 +1.11%
FTSE 100 5,391.14 +0.65%
STOXX 50 2,160.31 +0.58%
DAX 6,396.84 +1.16%
Oil (WTI) 90.87 +0.01%
U.S. 10-year 1.745% +0.007
BAC:US 7.44 +4.06%
FB:US 28.84 -9.62%

U.S. Supreme Court Doesn't Act on Virginia Bid to Scuttle Health-Care Law

Enlarge image Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Office of the Attorney General via Bloomberg

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Source: Office of the Attorney General via Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court deferred taking action on a bid by Virginia’s attorney general for fast- track consideration of the state’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul.

Virginia, one of 27 states that say the measure is unconstitutional, is urging the justices to take the unusual step of scheduling arguments without waiting for rulings by the four appeals courts that are poised to consider the law.

The case was on a list of petitions for review the justices were scheduled to consider at a private conference last week. The justices resolved most of those cases in a list of orders released today in Washington. They will release more orders a week from today.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli of Virginia said in an interview last week that the petition was a long shot. He argued in court papers that the dispute “is of imperative national importance requiring immediate determination in this court.”

The states say Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to either obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

The step sought by Virginia, known as certiorari before judgment, is one the court has taken only a handful of times, including its 1974 decision ordering President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office tape recordings and its 1952 ruling blocking President Harry S Truman from seizing the nation’s steel mills.

The Obama administration argued that the health-care dispute doesn’t rise to that level of urgency, in part because the disputed provision doesn’t take effect until 2014.

No Urgency

“The constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision is undoubtedly an issue of great public importance,” acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued in court papers. “This case is not, however, one of the rare cases that justifies deviation from normal appellate practice and requires immediate determination in this court.”

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled in December that Congress’s authority over interstate commerce didn’t give it the power to enact the insurance mandate. A federal appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia, is scheduled to hear the Obama administration’s appeal of that ruling May 10 -- alongside an appeal of a different judge’s decision upholding the law.

Another appeals court, based in Cincinnati, will consider the issue June 1, and a third, based in Atlanta, will hear arguments June 8 in a case involving the other 26 states challenging the law. An appeals court in Washington will consider the matter later this year.

Commerce Clause

The Supreme Court hasn’t directly considered a challenge to Congress’s power under the Constitution’s commerce clause since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005.

Opponents say the health plan is unlike anything the Supreme Court has ever upheld because the law would require people to take action: either buy health insurance or pay a fine. Hudson said no Supreme Court or appeals court ruling authorizes Congress to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce” by buying something.

The Obama administration argues that people who would opt not to buy insurance without the mandate will affect interstate commerce eventually -- and potentially impose costs on the government, insurers and hospitals -- when they seek emergency room or other medical services.

The administration also contends that the individual mandate is essential to the law’s goal of increasing health-care availability and affordability.

The government says that, without such a rule, people could forgo buying insurance until they became sick, at which point the new law would require insurers to provide coverage. The effect would be to eventually drive insurers out of business, the administration says.

The Supreme Court case is Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 10-1014.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net.

Sponsored Links