NRL News

Supreme Court Rejects Expedited Review of ObamaCare

by | Apr 25, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Ken Cuccinelli

In a not unexpected decision, earlier today the United States Supreme Court turned down a request by the attorney general of Virginia to expedite a review of ObamaCare, the constitutionality of which has been upheld by some courts and rejected by others.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli had told the Court that the justices should bypass the usual appeals process, arguing that there is a “palpable consensus in this country that the question of PPACA’s [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare] constitutionality must be and will be decided in this court.”

A number of  lawsuits are challenging ObamaCare on various grounds. In the Commonwealth’s case [Virginia v. Sebelius], Cuccinelli maintained that Congress lacks the authority “to pass the so-called individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans either be covered by their employer’s insurance or buy their own coverage,” as the Washington Post’s Bob Barnes wrote today.  Virginia’s lawsuit can be read here.

The Obama administration’s rejoinder was that the High Court could benefit from the reviews working their way through the appellate courts and that  the individual mandate requirement does not take effect until 2014.   

Cuccinelli issued a statement in which he characterized as “disappointing but not surprising.”

He also said, “We asked the United States Supreme Court for expedited review of our lawsuit because Virginia and other states are already spending huge sums to implement their portions of the health care act, businesses are already making decisions about whether to cut or keep employee health plans, and citizens are in limbo until the Supreme Court rules. Asking the court to expedite our lawsuit was about removing this crippling and costly uncertainty as quickly as possible. We were gratified that both Republicans and Democrats in Virginia supported the effort to expedite.”

For background, see

Barnes concluded his story, “Monday’s action on the Virginia request did provide one clue about the court’s future deliberations on the health-care law: It appears that Justice Elena Kagan participated in the decision. Conservative critics of the law have suggested that Kagan might have to sit out review of the law because of her role as President Obama’s first solicitor general. Kagan told the Senate during her confirmation hearings last summer that she took part in only the most minor of discussions about the health-care law.”

National Right to Life supports repeal of the Obama Health Care Law because it contains multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care (see “Rationing of lifesaving medical care” at as well as multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion, and additional provisions on which future abortion-expanding regulatory mandates may be based {see

I would very much appreciate your feedback. It is very important. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: ObamaCare