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
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 2Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 3Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 4Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
- 5Monday Newspaper
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