Judge Denies States' Injunction Bid for Affordable Care Act Payments
A federal judge in San Francisco found that the Trump administration has so far put forth the more convincing legal argument and that an injunction would be “counterproductive."
October 25, 2017 at 04:41 PM
7 minute read
A federal judge declined Wednesday to force the Trump administration to make critical payments to health insurers under the Affordable Care Act, finding that although the law requires insurance companies be paid, it's unclear whether Congress has actually set aside money for these payments.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, appointed by President Barack Obama, said in his order that the requirements for a preliminary injunction forcing the government to pay up were not met because the Trump administration made more convincing legal arguments that the payments were not appropriated by Congress. A group of 17 Democratic attorneys general, including California's Xavier Becerra and New York's Eric Schneiderman, sued the Trump administration Oct. 13 to force the government to continue the payments. But Chhabria found that forcing the administration to make the payments would be “counterproductive” thanks to steps the states had made in anticipation of Trump's move to cut off the subsidies.
“State regulators have been working for months to prepare for the termination of these payments,” Chhabria wrote. “And although you wouldn't know it from reading the states' papers in this lawsuit, the truth is that most state regulators have devised responses that give millions of lower-income people better health coverage options than they would otherwise have had.”
Trump announced earlier this month that his administration would end the government payments, which cover out-of-pocket expenses and co-payments for low-income people. In their lawsuit, the states argued the administration flouted the Administrative Procedures Act by ending the subsidies suddenly. They said cutting off the payments will create chaos in the insurance markets, though Chhabria seemed skeptical of that claim in a hearing Monday.
The government argued the payments were never authorized by Congress because they were not appropriated and are therefore illegal. When the administration abandoned the payments, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in a memo that “Congress has the power of the purse, and it is up to Congress to decide which programs it will and will not fund.”
In the hearing, Chhabria noted the state of California and several others expected the Trump administration to cut off the payments and already made plans with insurance companies on how to adjust. Chhabria seemed concerned that forcing the payments would create further instability.
The Democratic AGs also intervened in another suit over the payments, initiated by the majority Republican House of Representatives in 2014 against the Obama administration, to defend the subsidies. That case remains stalled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the House is expected to tell the court what it plans to do next by Oct. 30. In the lower court, however, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia sided with the House, and now the Trump administration.
In a press statement Wednesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that the ruling did not signal the end of the states' case.
“The judge made clear in his ruling that the ACA is the law of the land,” Becerra said. “Without an emergency order halting the Trump action, swift action in this litigation becomes even more compelling.”
A federal judge declined Wednesday to force the Trump administration to make critical payments to health insurers under the Affordable Care Act, finding that although the law requires insurance companies be paid, it's unclear whether Congress has actually set aside money for these payments.
U.S. District Judge
“State regulators have been working for months to prepare for the termination of these payments,” Chhabria wrote. “And although you wouldn't know it from reading the states' papers in this lawsuit, the truth is that most state regulators have devised responses that give millions of lower-income people better health coverage options than they would otherwise have had.”
Trump announced earlier this month that his administration would end the government payments, which cover out-of-pocket expenses and co-payments for low-income people. In their lawsuit, the states argued the administration flouted the Administrative Procedures Act by ending the subsidies suddenly. They said cutting off the payments will create chaos in the insurance markets, though Chhabria seemed skeptical of that claim in a hearing Monday.
The government argued the payments were never authorized by Congress because they were not appropriated and are therefore illegal. When the administration abandoned the payments, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in a memo that “Congress has the power of the purse, and it is up to Congress to decide which programs it will and will not fund.”
In the hearing, Chhabria noted the state of California and several others expected the Trump administration to cut off the payments and already made plans with insurance companies on how to adjust. Chhabria seemed concerned that forcing the payments would create further instability.
The Democratic AGs also intervened in another suit over the payments, initiated by the majority Republican House of Representatives in 2014 against the Obama administration, to defend the subsidies. That case remains stalled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the House is expected to tell the court what it plans to do next by Oct. 30. In the lower court, however, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia sided with the House, and now the Trump administration.
In a press statement Wednesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said that the ruling did not signal the end of the states' case.
“The judge made clear in his ruling that the ACA is the law of the land,” Becerra said. “Without an emergency order halting the Trump action, swift action in this litigation becomes even more compelling.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250