Fed. Appeals Court Deals Setback in Settlement of ACA Payments Case
The D.C. Circuit declined to grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss a case between the Trump administration, House Republicans and a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general over the legality of insurer subsidies under the Affordable Care Act—jeopardizing the agreement the parties reached in the litigation late last year.
March 08, 2018 at 03:00 PM
2 minute read
Affordable Care Act application on Healthcare.gov site.
A settlement between the Trump administration, House Republicans and a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general over the legality of insurer subsidies under the Affordable Care Act has hit a potential snag.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss the case, jeopardizing the agreement they reached in the litigation late last year.
The proposed settlement sought to vacate a ruling by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the District of Columbia that the Obama administration, in the absence of congressional appropriation, unlawfully paid cost-sharing reduction payments. So-called CSRs were designed to offset the cost of discounts that insurers were required to give eligible lower-income Americans under the ACA.
In an earlier ruling in the case, Collyer also found that the House had standing to sue over the billions of dollars in payments. With regard to that ruling, the proposed settlement stated that the parties agree that the ruling remains, but does not “control” decisions in future litigation over this issue.
Because the parties' proposed agreement sought to undo just one of Collyer's rulings, a three-judge panel of the D.C. federal appellate court suggested that doing so may not be permissible and asked for further briefing on the matter.
“While not otherwise limited, the parties are directed to explain [in their supplemental briefs] what 'exceptional circumstances' justify partial vacatur,” according to the order.
In October, President Donald Trump said that he would end the subsidy payments, which paved the way to the settlement. It also prompted the attorneys general in 17 generally Democratic-led states and D.C., including California and New York, to bring a lawsuit in federal court forcing federal regulators to continue making the payments.
The case, California v. Trump, is pending in San Francisco, with a hearing scheduled for later this month.
This content has been archived.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 AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Rates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
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