Supreme Court revives probe of Va. deaths

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday breathed new life into a Virginia agency’s investigation into the deaths at state mental health facilities that state officials have tried to rebuff.

 

The court ruled that the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy can sue the state in federal court to obtain records related to the deaths that the agency has been trying to get since 2007.

VOPA is seeking investigative records in a suspicious death at the Central State Hospital in Petersburg and a possibly negligent death and negligent injury at the Central Virginia Training Center in Lynchburg.

When state officials refused to turn over records related to those incidents, the agency sued in federal court to obtain them. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, however, ruling that VOPA, as a state agency, could not sue another state agency in federal court.

On Tuesday, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that the country’s highest court is also mindful of the role states play in the federal system and wary of approving new encroachments on state sovereignty. But he also noted that VOPA was created under Virginia law and given the power to sue state officials.

The justices ruled 6-2 to reverse the appellate court’s judgment; Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case.

The Virginia General Assembly established VOPA in 2002 as an independent state agency, charged with investigating abuse and neglect of people with disabilities.

“We are obviously very pleased with the decision,” said VOPA Executive Director Colleen Miller. “We are humbled by the wisdom of the court and grateful to have had the highest court in the land consider our situation.

“Sadly, this simply means that our case can now begin,” she added.

Indeed, the case will now be sent back to a lower court to address the merits of the case.

Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, wrote in an email that Cuccinelli was disappointed with the outcome but aware that it was a challenging case.

[email protected]

Related Content