On what grounds is the health-care law being challenged?
States in both cases primarily challenge the individual mandate's validity under the Constitution's Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment.
Historically, federal courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause to enable Congress to regulate interstate economic activity or noneconomic activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce. However, plaintiffs assert that Congress cannot direct its Commerce Clause power at one's . To them, the individual mandate does just that by forcing Americans to spend their money on insurance they may not want.
Further, the states claim that Congress is commandeering traditional state powers under the 10th Amendment, such as regulating intrastate insurance programs.
To bolster their 10th Amendment claims, Virginia and five states in the Florida suit – Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, and Arizona – created conflict between federal and state laws by passing laws prohibiting government from compelling their citizens to purchase health insurance.
What has happened? What's next?
On Aug. 2, Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia denied the federal government's motion to dismiss Cuccinelli's lawsuit.
Judge Hudson, a Reagan appointee, found that the conflict of state and federal law created a sufficient injury to allow Virginia to sue. He rejected the federal government's argument that the case would not be ripe for adjudication until the individual mandate's 2014 implementation.
