Settlement in Affordable Care Act Payments Case Helps States' Suit Proceed
The Trump administration, House Republicans and a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have settled their lawsuit over the legality of insurer subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The settlement states that the parties agree that a trial judge's ruling that the House had standing to challenge the payments remains but does not “control” decisions in future litigation over this issue, clearing the way for the states' separate lawsuit.
December 20, 2017 at 01:05 PM
3 minute read
The Trump administration, House Republicans and a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have settled a lawsuit over the legality of insurer subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But that doesn't mean that litigation regarding the issue is over—far from it.
The settlement reached in the case filed in the District of Columbia federal circuit court is apparently due to Trump's cessation of insurer reimbursements.
“In light of changed circumstances, the House, the agencies and the states have determined to resolve the dispute that is pending,” it said.
Spokeswomen for both California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and New York AG Eric Schneiderman said that the agreement paves the way for the 19 states' lawsuit aimed at forcing federal regulators to continue paying billions of dollars in cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRs), designed to offset the cost of discounts that insurers were required to give eligible lower-income Americans under the ACA.
In the House Republicans' 2014 lawsuit challenging the legality of the cost-sharing reduction payments, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington, D.C., ruled that the group had standing to do so and that the Obama administration, in the absence of congressional appropriation, unlawfully paid the CSRs. The judge stayed an injunction that would block further payments to insurance companies in order to give the executive branch the opportunity to appeal, which the Obama administration did. A coalition of 19 state AGs led by Becerra and Schneiderman intervened.
While the case was pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Trump announced in October that he would end the subsidy payments, prompting the AGs to sue in federal court in California to block such action.
The settlement asks Collyer to vacate her injunction blocking payments of the CSRs. It also states that the parties agree that her ruling that the House had standing to challenge the appropriations remains but does not “control” decisions in future litigation over this issue.
“We believe that California can now move forward with our litigation,” the spokeswoman for Becerra said.
The judge in that October case denied the states' request for a preliminary injunction forcing the government to continue to make the CSR payments. The case, California v. Trump, is pending in San Francisco, with a hearing scheduled for March.
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'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
3 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
- 5Will a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to a Dark Horse US Firm in China?
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