November 18, 2010 in News

High court weighs state joining health care suit

Seattle challenges whether McKenna could make the call

• Print
• Email
• Share

OLYMPIA — Washington state has entered both sides of the federal lawsuit challenging health care reform, and today the state Supreme Court tried to figure out who had the authority to jump into the fray.

The City of Seattle is suing Attorney General Rob McKenna, saying he overstepped his constitutional authority by joining the federal case against some aspects of health care reform because he wasn’t representing the interests of the taxpayers.

But justices questioned Seattle attorney Laura Wishik whether the city has the right to challenge McKenna’s actions. Yes, replied Wishik, because the city is a taxpayer and is representing its citizens.

“We’re asking this court to say ‘Whoa, Mister Attorney General, you did not have standing…You need to take a step back,’” she said.

But what about the citizens who don’t support the new health care law, asked Justice Gerry Alexander. It seems ironic that both the city of Seattle and McKenna claim to be working on behalf of the citizens, he said: “How do we sort out where different people have different interests?”

And what if health care reform winds up costing Washington residents — the taxpayers — more; would that affect the city’s ability to sue, asked Justice Jim Johnson. No, said Wishik, because previous courts haven’t ruled there has to be a dollar-for-dollar showing of benefit or loss.

Wishik argued that McKenna has no authority under the state Constitution or statutes to join the lawsuit without the support of other state agencies or officers. State Solicitor Maureen Hart, who was representing McKenna, said he has that authority whenever he believes federal law violates the state’s rights. The state is McKenna’s client, she said.

“What is the state?” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen asked. “Is it this amorphous entity, or can the state only act through officials and agencies?”

And if the state is his client, Justice Mary Fairhurst asked, with whom does he consult to follow rules of professional conduct that demand an attorney abide by a client’s decisions?

There’s not a single client, and McKenna is taking his authority from state law, not other state officials, Hart said.

Gov. Chris Gregoire and some Democratic legislative leaders have objected to McKenna joining the suit on behalf of the state, although Gregoire filed a brief with the state Supreme Court that said he had the right to join personally as the state’s attorney general, just not as a representative of the state as a whole.

Gregoire and the city of Seattle are “at odds” over whether he can get into the federal case, Hart noted. And the federal court has allowed Gregoire and several other Democratic governors to file a “friend of the court” brief opposing McKenna and other Republican governors and attorneys general.

So Washington is involved in the federal lawsuit on both sides, Justice Debra Stephens asked. It was, Hart said

“Yes there’s politics involved here,” Wishik said. “But the real heart of this case is what authority does the attorney general have?”

Alexander, however, said the court wasn’t there to settle political issues: “I thought this was a legal issue.”

Five comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  bdr on November 18 at 1:31 p.m.

  McKenna is just doing a worthless political maneuver.
  The supreme court already tossed another state objections because they didn’t try its merits in lower courts first.

  At the state level it could be argued lack of car insurance penalty would have to be removed, if you want the health penalty removed. ((law makers would throw out McKenna’s motion in a second at state level too))

  McKenna doesn’t want to rehash car insurance (because of the precedence has been set for decades of good).

  All Republicans want is Obama gone……and to do nothing but bring back the oil mob of the 1930s.

• 

  Orange on November 18 at 1:43 p.m.

  Huh?

• 

  SpokaneMom on November 18 at 1:48 p.m.

  Obamacare is illegal and I am very happy that our Attorney General is pointing out the painfully obvious to democrats. You cannot force Americans to participate in commerce per the Constitution.

  The IRS doesn’t force you to prove that you have car insurance or that it meets minimum guidelines set forth by the federal government. If you don’t have car insurance no one cares and if you get caught you pay a ticket. But no one is looking to see if you have coverage.

  Washington state is clearly 50% for and 50% against. There are so many others ways to make health care affordable without the government bureaucracy.

• 

  hawken on November 18 at 5:00 p.m.

  The Constitution is a huge problem for the liberal-left, big government agenda….

  Of course they will oppose McKenna! The city of Seattle no less.

  That which they cannot achieve through the electorate, they will attempt through activist court justices.

• 

  PlanB on November 18 at 7:45 p.m.

  McKenna is certainly not representing me.

  This is a purely political move by McKenna and the other republican attorney generals and has nothing to do with protecting the rights of the state.

  Health Care Reform is constitutional. The ‘necessary and proper’ clause of the constitution gives the federal government the right to enact legislation needed to ensure the safety and general welfare of citizens. We should have had health care coverage for all decades ago.