Petition for Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit

No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in her Official Capacity, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II CHARLES E. JAMES,JR. Attorney General of Virginia Chief Deputy Attorney General E. DUNCAN GETCHELL, JR. Solicitor General of Virginia WESLEY G. RUSSELL, JR. [email protected] Deputy Attorney General Counsel of Record [email protected] OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: (804) 786-2436 Facsimile: (804) 786-1991 September 30, 2011 Counsel for the Commonwealth of Virginia ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred when, contrary to well developed sovereign standing law in this Court and in other circuits, it became the first circuit to deny that a State of the Union has standing to defend its own code of laws. 2. Whether the Fourth Circuit erred, and opened a circuit split, when it construed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act contrary to the construction placed upon it by the chief law officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia by holding it to be merely symbolic and therefore not a real law capable of giving rise to a sovereign injury, basing this holding in part upon a misreading of the Virginia Constitution and Acts of the Assembly. 3. Whether the Fourth Circuit erred when, contrary to definitive pronouncements of this Court and opinions of other circuits, it read the political question doctrine prong of Massachusetts v. Mellon as having continued vitality so as to prevent a State from challenging an enactment of the United States on enumerated powers grounds. 4. Whether the power claimed by Congress in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to mandate that a citizen purchase a good or service from another citizen is unconstitutional because the claimed power exceeds the outer limits of the Commerce Clause even as executed by the Necessary and Proper Clause. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED – Continued 5. Whether the PPACA mandate and penalty can be sustained as an exercise of the taxing power. 6. Whether the PPACA mandate and penalty are severable from all of the remaining provisions of the enactment. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT There are no disclosable entities, persons or interests. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. viii PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ..... 9 A. The Standing Decision Of The Fourth Circuit Is Independently Worthy Of Supreme Court Review Because It Has Opened A Circuit Split Concerning An Important Question Of Federal Law ......... 9 1. The ruling below misapprehends the foundational and continuing role of the federal courts as arbiters of competing claims of state and federal power ................................................... 9 2. The Fourth Circuit has placed limits on sovereign standing unknown to this Court or to the other circuits which have considered sovereign standing ............................................... 17 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page (a) This is not a parens patriae case ...... 17 (b) The Fourth Circuit has opened a split with the District of Columbia Circuit by accepting the invitation of the United States to reject, in the guise of standing analysis, the State’s construction of its own law .. 18 (c) The understanding of sovereign injury expressed by the Fourth Circuit is erroneous and in conflict with decisions of this Court and those of various circuit courts of appeals ............................................ 20 3. The Fourth Circuit erred in purporting to exhume the political question doctrine rationale of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), and review should be granted to make clear that the political question prong of Mellon has long since been abandoned .................. 22 B. Certiorari should be granted because the federal courts are fractured on the constitutionality of PPACA, a matter of great public importance ............................. 27 1. This Court should grant certiorari in this case on the merits as well as on the jurisdictional issues in order to ensure reaching the merits ................. 28 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 2. The Court should grant certiorari in this case on the merits as well as on the jurisdictional issues because arguments concerning the merits and the appropriate remedy are well developed ............................................. 29 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 37 INDEX TO APPENDIX Slip Opinion, dismissing action for lack of standing Virginia v. Sebelius—FourthCircuit Court of Appeals—No.11-1057 (Sept. 8, 2011) .... App. 1 Memorandum Opinion, granting Virginia’s Motion for Summary Judgment Virginia v. Sebelius—Eastern District of Virginia—No. 3:10cv188 (Dec. 13, 2010) .............................. App. 45 Order Granting Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary Judgment Virginia v. Sebelius— Eastern District of Virginia—No. 3:10cv188 (Dec. 13, 2010) ................................................ App. 96 Memorandum Opinion, Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Virginia v. Sebelius— Eastern District of Virginia—No. 3:10cv188 (Aug. 2, 2010) ................................................. App. 98 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Virginia v. Sebelius—Eastern District of Virginia—No. 3:10cv188 (Aug. 2, 2010) ...... App. 134 Constitutional Provisions ................................ App. 136 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Federal Statutory Provision § 1501 of PPACA .... App. 137 State Statutory Provisions .............................. App. 154 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— (PPACA) Public Law 111-148 HR3590— (March 23, 2010)—Table of Contents .......... App. 155 Excerpt of Plaintiff ’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Virginia v. Sebelius—Eastern District of Virginia—No. 3:10cv188 (Sept. 3, 2010) Commonwealth’s Statement of Undisputed Facts ................... App. 186 Civil Docket for Case—Virginia v. Sebelius— 3:10cv188 U.S. District Court—Eastern District of Virginia—(Richmond) ................. App. 193 Docket Sheet for Case—Virginia v. Sebelius —No. 11-1057 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ......................................................... App. 234 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987) ........................................... 34, 35 Alaska v. U.S. Dep’t of Transportation, 868 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ................ 14, 16, 20, 23 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) ................................................. 32 Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ................................................. 14 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................................. 7, 25 Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill. v. United States, 289 U.S. 48 (1933) ................................................... 33 Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011) ............................. 5, 10, 14, 21 Brown v. Fletcher, 237 U.S. 583 (1915) ................................................. 36 Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20 (1922) ................................................... 34 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ........................... 13, 14 Dep’t of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 (1994) ................................................. 34 Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) ............................................. 14, 17 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Dick v. New York Life Insurance Co., 359 U.S. 437 (1959) ................................................. 37 EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) ................................................. 18 Ex parte Keough, 286 U.S. 529 (1932) ................................................. 25 Flast v. Cohen, 342 U.S. 88 (1968) ................................................... 23 Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8822 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2011) ......................................... 10 Florida v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Services, Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16806 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011) ..................... 5, 8, 27, 28, 29 Florida v. United States Dep’t of Health

Load more