ruling. the passage here in which the judge says that the unchecked expansion of federal power suggested by the coverage provision would provide unbridled government powers but about the individual s right to choo to participate. doesn t this validate skeptics that despite intentions you can t require people to participate in a law like this? i think a couple of important things for perspective. first and foremost the administration argued on the other side of this case and disagrees with the ruling. i do think it is important to keep some perspective about the fact that there are now 20 or so cases making their way through federal courts. a the court this was the eastern district of virginia. 115 miles away, the western district court of virginia ruled