Too Soon? Texas-Led Coalition Asks SCOTUS to Reject Appeal on Obamacare
The state of Texas has asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to take up an appeal of litigation over the Affordable Care Act, and instead give a Texas district court the chance to determine if the entire health care act is unconstitutional.
February 03, 2020 at 03:15 PM
4 minute read
The state of Texas on Monday argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should not take up the Affordable Care Act case, because it said the appeal is not yet ripe.
The state argued in its brief in opposition that the appeal by a coalition of Democratic states and the U.S. House of Representatives came too early, because a Texas district court hasn't had the chance to rule whether the entire law, nicknamed Obamacare, 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, by Texas Solicitor General Kyle D. Hawkins, was filed on behalf of attorneys general from 18 states total, including Texas, Florida and Georgia.
|
Read the brief:
The Supreme Court appeal concerns a ruling by the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found 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 not having insurance.
The Fifth Circuit panel decision largely affirmed a ruling in December 2018 by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas, but sent the case back to O'Connor 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 means no ruling will come out ahead of the 2020 election in November. The stance of the Trump administration and a coalition of Republican states is that the whole Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
The Texas opposition brief said that the Fifth Circuit was correct to hold that the Republican states, and two individual plaintiffs, had suffered harm from the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, which would give them standing to sue over the act. Texas also argued that the Fifth Circuit correctly held that the individual mandate, with no tax penalty, was unconstitutional, said the brief.
On the other hand, the Texas-led coalition argued that the Fifth Circuit should have been the one to decide whether the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the rest of the Affordable Care Act. But it was "hardly indefensible" that the Fifth Circuit would remand the case to the district court to go line-by-line and answer that severance question, and find a remedy, the brief said.
"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," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton 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
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 AllLatham & Watkins Successfully Defend Patents at the ITC for Cosmetic Devices
3 minute readHouston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
4 minute readAttorney General Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Abortion-Related Telemedicine
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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