******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, April 25, 2011

No Expedited Path To U.S. Sup. Ct. for Virginia Health Care Case

ScotusBlog is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court, without any dissents noted, has passed on the application of the State of Virginia for expedited review of the case now on appeal to the 4th Circuit.  The District Court in Virginia had ruled the health care mandate unconstitutional.

I very much would have liked the Supreme Court to take the case because politically a relatively prompt resolution is important, but from a legal and case management perspectives, I understand why the high court might want to wait.

First, the Virginia case is not the only case, and not even the case with the most states involved.  To take one case, while others are pending elsewhere, might not make sense.

Second, while there has been a split of opinion at the trial court level, no appeals court has yet ruled.  If the appeals courts resolve the issue uniformly (unlikely in my view), the Supreme Court may not need to get involved.

Third, the mandate is not yet in effect, and will not take effect until 2014, so there is time for the Supreme Court to see how things play out.

Fourth, depending upon what happens in the political sphere, the mandate may become moot.

Again, I wish the Court had taken the case and expedited appeals of other pending cases.  I view this decision to pass on the case as the Supreme Court not wanting to preempt the political process, unless and until the issue cannot be avoided constitutionally.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


  1. "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." -- Article III, Section 2

    Don't they have "original jurisdiction" ?

  2. @Neo - I previously posted on this issue with regard to the Arizona immigration lawsuit

  3. Why is it that "... politically a relatively prompt resolution is important?"

    From my perspective, the longer this thing hangs out there, the better. Keeping this issue alive keeps it in the forefront. Getting a decision now relegates it to dusty old relic, likely forgotten y a great deal of the electorate this next election.

  4. Looks like Justice Kagan did not recuse herself.