Virginia to seek expedited Supreme Court review of suit over health-care law

By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 4, 2011; A03

RICHMOND - Virginia will ask that the U.S. Supreme Court immediately review the state's constitutional challenge to the federal health-care overhaul, a rare legal request to bypass appeals and seek early intervention from the nation's highest court, Attorney General Ken T. Cuccinelli II said Thursday.
Cuccinelli (R) said that conflicting court decisions about the law's constitutionality have created sufficient uncertainty about implementation of the law to justify speeding Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department will oppose the motion, saying the case should be fully heard by lower courts before the high court acts.
The high court has granted such requests infrequently, and many experts said they think Cuccinelli's filing is a longshot. Supporters of the law said that the provision at the heart of the legal dispute - a requirement that individuals buy health insurance - will not go into effect until 2014.
A U.S. District Court judge in Virginia ruled in December that it is unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance, as envisioned in the law. The federal government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case in May.
A federal judge in Florida ruled this week in a suit filed jointly by Florida and 25 other states that the law is unconstitutional. In other cases, two other federal judges have said the law is constitutional.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the expedited review would not significantly change the case's timeline, since it is to be heard in May, likely allowing the Supreme Court to take up the case during its next term. "Virginia's suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide," she said.
Legal experts have said the court is unlikely to grant Virginia's action because the justices generally appreciate the opportunity to review lower-court opinions.
"This is exceptionally rare," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "It goes against a number of operating principles of the court."