## Facts

- Virginia statutes authorized localities to provide self-funded health benefits for employees and their “dependents,” but did not define “dependent.”
- Arlington County announced it would expand eligible “dependents” under its self-funded health plan to include “one adult dependent,” including a spouse, a domestic partner, or another adult claimed as a dependent on the employee’s federal tax return.
- The County defined “domestic partner” eligibility using criteria including one-year cohabitation, shared living expenses, financial interdependence, mutual exclusive commitment, non-marriage, non-relation, competence, and being at least 18 years old.
- Domestic partner coverage was available for same-sex and opposite-sex partners upon employee certification that the criteria were met.
- County taxpayers sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the County acted ultra vires under the Dillon Rule by creating an unauthorized benefits-eligibility category.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the taxpayers and enjoined implementation of domestic-partner coverage; the County appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Dillon Rule, a county has authority to define “dependents” in state enabling statutes for employee health benefits to include employees’ unmarried domestic partners.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed summary judgment for the taxpayers.
- The Court held the County exceeded its powers by extending coverage to unmarried domestic partners under its self-funded employee health plan.
- The Court concluded the County’s action violated the Dillon Rule because the General Assembly had not clearly authorized this additional eligibility class.
- A separate opinion agreed the program was invalid but would have relied more explicitly on state public policy regarding recognition of same-sex unions.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Dillon Rule, Virginia localities possess only: (1) powers expressly granted by the General Assembly; (2) powers necessarily or fairly implied from express grants; and (3) powers essential and indispensable, not merely convenient.
- Any reasonable doubt about the existence of local governmental power is resolved against the locality.
- A locality may not use an undefined statutory term as a basis to create a new class of benefit recipients absent clear legislative authorization; defining “dependents” to include unmarried domestic partners exceeded any fairly implied authority from statutes permitting coverage for employees and dependents.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Arlington County’s domestic-partner coverage under its self-funded health plan because expanding “dependents” to include unmarried domestic partners was not authorized by statute and therefore exceeded local power under the Dillon Rule.


Arlington County v. White, 259 Va. 708, 528 S.E.2d 706 (Va. 2000)