Rule of Law

Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius

At issue in Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius was the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Case Summary

On March 7, 2011, CAC filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit in Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius in support of the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. CAC’s brief draws on a treasure trove of documents collected by the University of Virginia as part of the George Washington Papers collection, documents that have provided fresh insight into the views of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founders on the scope of federal powers under the Constitution they helped write.

Our brief demonstrates that the Founders’ Constitution created a national government capable of solving national problems. Under the original meaning of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress acted within its constitutional authority in enacting the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision.

This case came before the Fourth Circuit on the government’s appeal from the decision of District Judge Henry E. Hudson (E.D. Va.) echoing the popular Tea Party meme that Congress has no authority to compel individuals to purchase health care insurance, and that the minimum coverage provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is therefore unconstitutional.

On September 8, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the challenges to the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the State of Virginia did not have standing to bring the case.

On June 29, 2012, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. For more information on the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, please go here.

Case Timeline

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.