Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum told Bloomberg in this report that the requirement that individuals buy some form of health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution and also impedes on state’s abilities to provide other services because of the cost burdens.

According to the National Law Journal, two partners at Baker Hostetler have been enlisted as outside general counsel by several state attorneys general looking to overturn the law. David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey will be at the helm and, according to the report, Florida is expected to be the lead plaintiff in the suit.

In Virginia, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli called the law “an unconstitutional overreach of its authority.” He explained his position in a press release.

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” he said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person — by definition — is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

At last count, the other states that say they will sue are Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

• Florida’s Attorney General Issues Subpoenas To Law Firms Alleged To Have Fabricated Documents
• The Sunshine Brightens in Florida
• Morning Roundup
• Virginia’s Cuccinelli Sues Uncle Sam
• Obama Nominates 6 for US Attorney

Yesterday, a federal judge in SC shot down the license plates, saying “The ‘I Believe’ Act’s primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity”. But judge Cameron Currie didn’t stop there. She went on to say “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular”. Her objection was not limited to the promotion of a specific religion, but of religion in general, which makes me wonder whether she would have permitted a plan to include license plates that featured a spread of religious symbols. Would a law that let residents of the Palmetto State choose a plate that reflected their individual beliefs meet the same fate?

Speculation aside, Judge Currie thought this law was egregious enough to warrant additional action, ordering the state to pay the legal costs of the people that brought the lawsuit.

• 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds “God” Reference in Pledge of Allegiance
• Stephen Colbert Super PAC Releases Attack Ad
• K&L Gates Launch of South Carolina Office is 40th Worldwide
• Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Merges with White O’Connor Fink & Brenner LLP
• Revenue Director Joins Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP