Too Soon? 18-State Coalition Asks SCOTUS to Reject Obamacare Appeal
Republican attorneys general want the U.S. Supreme Court to wait for a federal district judge to decide on the constitutionality of the entire law.
February 03, 2020 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi
A coalition of attorneys general from 18 states wants the U.S. Supreme Court to skip an Obamacare appeal, arguing it's not ripe for review.
The states argued in a brief in opposition that the appeal by a coalition of Democratic states and the U.S. House is too early because a Texas district court hasn't had a chance to rule whether the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
"Where, as here, a court of appeals resolves the merits of an appeal but not the remedy, and remands to the district court to enter an appropriate remedial order, this court's practice is to deny review," the motion said. "This court should not allow petitioners to leapfrog lower-court consideration."
The 52-page brief in opposition filed by Texas Solicitor General Kyle D. Hawkins, was filed on his state, Florida, Georgia and several others.
The appeal challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found the individual mandate to purchase health insurance — which the Supreme Court upheld in 2012 as a constitutional tax — was no longer constitutional because Congress zeroed out the tax penalty for not having insurance in 2017.
The Fifth Circuit panel decision largely affirmed a 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas but remanded the case to decide whether Congress intended other provisions of the law to remain operable.
Although the Democratic states and U.S. House asked the Supreme Court to expedite the appeal, the justices declined to do that, which rules out a ruling before the November presidential election. The stance of the Trump administration and a coalition of Republican states is that the whole law is unconstitutional.
The opposition brief said the Fifth Circuit was correct to hold the Republican state plaintiffs and two individuals suffered harm from ACA's individual mandate, which would give them standing to sue over the act. Texas also argued the Fifth Circuit correctly held the individual mandate, with no tax penalty, was unconstitutional.
On the other hand, the coalition argued the Fifth Circuit should have been the one to decide whether the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the rest of Obamacare. But it was "hardly indefensible" that the Fifth Circuit would remand the case to the district court to go line-by-line, answer that severance question and find a remedy.
"The Fifth Circuit has ordered this case to return to district court to determine which, if any, provisions of Obamacare are still valid notwithstanding the unconstitutional mandate. That is where this case belongs at this time," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "I applaud the Fifth Circuit for upholding the core principle that the federal government cannot order private citizens to purchase subpar insurance that they don't want. I look forward to demonstrating exactly how this law has failed in district court."
Related stories:
Justices, Ruling for Trump's DOJ, Won't Rush Obamacare Case for This Term
On Obamacare, Trump's DOJ Tells Supreme Court There's No Rush
Donald Verrilli Returns to SCOTUS to Defend Obamacare
How Clarence Thomas Starred in Fifth Circuit's Ruling Against Obamacare
5th Circuit Strikes Gibson Dunn's Pro-Obamacare Brief Over Recusal Issue
'Embarrassingly Bad,' 'Unmoored': Legal Scholars Bash Texas Judge's ACA Takedown
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
© 2025 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![Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/28/90/106b497d4c2abf86218e4414ada2/attorney-fees-767x633.jpg)
Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute read![US Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe US Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/10/Trump-Cannon-767x633.jpg)
US Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute read![New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/98/ca/4dd6a947421bbc9c53aad7b8dd51/allstate-insurance-2-767x633.jpg)
![Read the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions Read the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2024/07/Trump-Smith-767x633-1.jpg)
Read the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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