Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sibelius Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond DivisionCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, )ex rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, in his official )capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ))KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the )Department of Health and Human Services, )in her official capacity, ))Defendant. ))Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00188-HEH

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFDEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 22 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 52

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1Argument .........................................................................................................................................5I. Statement of the case ...........................................................................................................5A. Statutory background ...................................................................................................5B. Current proceedings .....................................................................................................9II. Standard of review ...............................................................................................................9III. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction .......................10A. Virginia lacks standing because it has alleged no cognizable injury ........................ 111. Virginia cannot sue the federal government to exempt its citizensfrom federal law ..................................................................................................122. Virginia has alleged no cognizable injury to its own interests ...........................13B. Virginia cannot evade the procedures prescribed by law for an individualto contest a liability under the minimum coverage provision ....................................16C. Virginia’s claim of an abstract conflict between state and federal law is notripe for review ............................................................................................................17IV. The complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ...................................................................................................................18A. The comprehensive regulatory measures of the ACA, including the minimumcoverage provision, are a proper exercise of Congress’s powers under theCommerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause .........................................191. The Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce is broad ............. 202. The ACA, and the minimum coverage provision, regulate the interstatemarket in health insurance .................................................................................233. The minimum coverage provision regulates conduct with substantialeffects on interstate commerce ............................................................................25

Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 22 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 52

ii4. The minimum coverage provision is an integral part of the larger regulatory scheme and is necessary and proper to Congress’s regulationof interstate commerce ........................................................................................30a. The minimum coverage provision is essential to the comprehensiveregulation Congress enacted ......................................................................31 b. The minimum coverage provision is also a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause .......................34B. The minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’sindependent power under the General Welfare Clause ..............................................35Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................39

Case 3:10-cv-00188-HEH Document 22 Filed 05/24/10 Page 3 of 52