NU Online News Service, Aug. 2, 3:59 p.m.EDT

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has won a chance toget a hearing on arguments that new federal health coverageownership rules are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson, a judge in the U.S.District Court in Richmond, Va., has ruled against Obamaadministration efforts to have the suit, Cuccinelli vs. Sebelius,(Civil Action Number 3:10CV188-HEH) dismissed.

Mr. Cuccinelli filed the suit March 23. He argued on behalf ofVirginia that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and AffordableCare Act (PPACA), a component of the Affordable Care Act, goesbeyond the outer limits of the Commerce Clause of the U.S.Constitution, which permits Congress to regulate interstatecommerce, because "the failure–or refusal–of [Virginia] citizens toelect to purchase health insurance is not 'economic activity' andtherefore not subject to federal regulation under the CommerceClause," Judge Hudson wrote in an opinion explaining hisruling.

Mr. Cuccinelli also has argued that PPACA Section 1501 conflictswith the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act.

The defendant, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary KathleenSebelius, told the court it should dismiss the suit because PPACASection 1501 is the "central ingredient of a complex health careregulatory scheme," based on the believe that, at some point, everyindividual will need medical services, and that all individualssubject to the coverage ownership requirement ought to help reducethe amount of uncompensated medical services by purchasing healthcoverage.

Ms. Sebelius also has argued that PPACA Section 1501 is barredby the Anti-Injunction Act because it relies on the authority ofCongress to use its taxing and spending power under the GeneralWelfare Act, and that the question is not yet ripe for reviewbecause the PPACA Section 1501 will not take effect until 2014.

Judge Hudson has ruled that Virginia has standing to bring asuit, that the case is ripe for review because Virginia will haveto start implementing it in the near future, and that the questionsabout congressional authority are reasonable ones.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues,all seem to distill to the single question of whether or notCongress has the power to regulate–and tax–a citizen's decision notto participate in interstate commerce," the judge said. "Neitherthe U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals hassquarely addressed this issue."

Because some authorities appear to support the arguments on bothsides of the case, the court "cannot conclude at this stage thatthe complaint fails to state a cause of action," the judgesaid.