Justices Grant Obamacare Case, Testing Trump's Push to Scrap the Signature Health Law
The justices will hear arguments next term in a case brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states.
March 02, 2020 at 09:46 AM
4 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed once again to determine the fate of the embattled Affordable Care Act in the wake of arguments from the Trump administration and a group of Republican-led states that the entire law should be thrown out.
The justices will hear arguments next term in a case brought by a coalition of Democratic-led states. Those states, along with the U.S. House, defended the law's constitutionality in the lower appellate court against the effort by the administration and the Republican states to dismantle the law, including such popular provisions as coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.
In the high court, the Democratic coalition, led by California, is vying to overturn a December ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A divided panel ruled that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance—which the Supreme Court upheld in 2012 as a constitutional tax—was no longer constitutional because Congress in 2017 zeroed out the tax penalty for failure to have insurance.
The panel decision largely affirmed a ruling in December 2018 by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas. But the appellate panel sent back to O'Connor the question of whether Congress intended other provisions of the law to remain operable. O'Connor had earlier decided that the mandate was so central to the law that the entire law must fall.
The high court petition raises three issues stemming from the Fifth Circuit decision: whether the Republican-led states and individual plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the ACA because they had suffered no injury; whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and whether the mandate can be severed from the rest of the act.
The U.S. House filed a separate petition in which House general counsel Douglas Letter told the justices that the Fifth Circuit's decision is destabilizing the insurance market and hospitals' ability to make long-term investments as well as creating uncertainty about coverage for millions of Americans and small business owners and employees. Letter is assisted by Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Donald Verrilli Jr. and Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Siegel represents the Democratic-led states in the petition California v. Texas.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Texas solicitor general Kyle Hawkins urged the justices not to grant review. Francisco said the Fifth Circuit did not "definitively resolve any question of practical significance." He and Hawkins argued that the high court should wait for a final decision by the lower courts on the issue of whether the ACA can operate without the individual mandate.
"This court should not allow petitioners to leapfrog lower-court consideration based on their own asserted 'need for certainty,'" Hawkins wrote.
If the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, as argued by the Trump administration's Justice Department and the Republican coalition, the law's insurance coverage would end for an estimated 20 million people, including protection for people with preexisting conditions, the Medicaid expansion in many states, coverage for young persons up to age 26 on their parents' plans, subsidies for low-income people and a host of other wide-ranging changes.
The justices have agreed to decide two other ACA-related issues this term. In December, the court heard arguments in three consolidated cases contending that the federal government broke a statutory promise to pay insurers in the first three years of health benefit exchanges when their costs exceeded the premiums they collected. Not yet scheduled for arguments are two Pennsylvania cases concerning the Trump administration's expansion of the conscience exception to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the ACA.
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 AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readHospital Succeeds in Denying Vaccine Religious Accommodation Through 'Undue Hardship' Defense
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute read'Bipartisan Focus': Health Care Antitrust Litigation Likely to Remain Hot in 2025
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Legaltech Rundown: LexisNexis Releases Lexis+ AI Mobile App, Hotshot Launches New M&A Training Simulation, and More
- 3Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 4READ THE DOC: NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 5US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
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