Health Law Cannot Stand Without The Individual Mandate Tax, Federal Judge Rules
In a closely watched case, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, Texas ruled that without the penalty for not having health coverage, which Republicans zeroed out with their tax bill, the Affordable Care Act “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.” And the rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote. The judge's ruling, practically speaking, won't have an immediate impact on the way the health law operates. With enrollment closing on Saturday, the Trump administration said the court decision has “no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan."
The New York Times:
Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act As Unconstitutional
A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it. The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. (Goodnough and Pear, 12/14)
The Associated Press:
Federal Judge Rules Health Care Overhaul Unconstitutional
In a 55-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that last year’s tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under “Obamacare” by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage. The rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote. Supporters of the law immediately said they would appeal. “Today’s misguided ruling will not deter us: our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and wellbeing of all Americans,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is leading a coalition of states defending the ACA. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 12/14)
Politico:
Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional, Endangering Coverage For 20 Million
“In some ways, the question before the Court involves the intent of both the 2010 and 2017 Congresses,” O’Connor wrote. “The former enacted the ACA. The latter sawed off the last leg it stood on.” (Demko and Cancryn, 12/14)
The New York Times:
Health Law Could Be Hard To Knock Down Despite Judge’s Ruling
Could a federal judge in Texas be the catalyst that finally brings down the Affordable Care Act, a law that has withstood countless assaults from Republicans in Congress and two Supreme Court challenges? On the morning after Judge Reed O’Connor’s startling ruling that struck down the landmark health law, legal scholars were doubtful. Lawyers on both sides of previous A.C.A. battles said the reasoning behind this one was badly flawed, notably in its insistence that the entire 2010 law must fall because one of its provisions may have been rendered invalid by the 2017 tax overhaul legislation. Had Congress meant to take such radical action, they said, it would have said so at the time. (Hoffman, Pear and Liptak, 12/15)
The Washington Post:
Legal Experts Rip Judge’s Rationale For Declaring Obamacare Law Invalid
“There’s really no American that’s not affected by this law,” said Yale law professor Abbe Gluck, who filed an amicus brief with other lawyers in the Texas case. The judge’s ruling, she said, flouts settled legal doctrine and places key acts of Congress in reverse order. By ignoring that Congress specifically declined to strike down the ACA in 2017 when it chose to alter only one portion of the bill, she said, the judge decreed that the 2010 Congress, which first passed the law, has more authority than the same legislative body in 2017. “It’s absolutely ludicrous to hold that we do not know whether the 2017 Congress would have wanted the rest of the ACA to exist without an enforceable mandate, because the 2017 Congress did exactly that when it zeroed out the mandate and left the rest of the ACA standing,” Gluck said. “He effectively repealed the entire Affordable Care Act when the 2017 Congress decided not to do so.” (Barrett, 12/15)
The Hill:
Five Takeaways From The Court Decision Striking Down ObamaCare
But where legal experts particularly criticize O’Connor is his next step, where he ruled that because the mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the Affordable Care Act is also invalid. Experts say that violates the established legal standard that Congress’s intent should be the guide, and in this case it is obvious that Congress intended for the rest of the Affordable Care Act to remain when it repealed only the mandate penalty last year. (Sullivan, 12/15)
Reuters:
Trump Hails Judge's Ruling Against Obamacare As 'Great'
President Donald Trump on Saturday hailed a court decision against Obamacare as "a great ruling for our country," while a U.S. government official said the decision by a Texas judge would have no immediate impact on health coverage. (12/15)
The New York Times:
What The Obamacare Court Ruling Means For Open Enrollment
Open enrollment was scheduled to end on Saturday in most states, and every year, a surge of people sign up at the last minute. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent out an email to millions of Americans on Saturday trying to allay concerns, and HealthCare.gov displayed a red banner alerting people that the court’s decision would not affect open enrollment. “Are you covered yet?” HealthCare.gov tweeted on Saturday. “Hurry!” (Mervosh, 12/16)
The Washington Post:
ACA Ruling Creates New Anxieties For Consumers And The Health-Care Industry
The ruling by a federal judge in Texas striking down the Affordable Care Act has injected a powerful wave of uncertainty about recent changes woven into the U.S. health-care system that touch nearly all Americans and the industry that makes up one-sixth of the economy. The opinion, if upheld on appeal, would upend the health insurance industry, the way doctors and hospitals function, and the ability of millions of Americans to access treatments they need to combat serious diseases. (Goldstein, 12/16)
The Wall Street Journal:
What ACA Ruling May Mean For Millions Of Americans’ Health Coverage
Practically speaking, nothing will happen right away. The judge didn’t immediately block enforcement of the ACA, so it remains in effect for now. The White House on Friday night said the law would stay in place during the appeals stage of the case, a process that could take many months. ... It is an open question whether some states may attempt to back away from administering the health law starting next month, once the elimination of the tax penalty goes into effect. If they do, it could spark additional litigation. (Kendall, 12/15)
The Hill:
ObamaCare Signup Period Ends Amid New Uncertainty
ObamaCare's latest open enrollment period ended Saturday with the future of the law facing uncertainty after a federal judge in Texas struck it down. Sign-ups for ObamaCare plans at healthcare.gov, the federal platform used by 39 states, had already lagged behind previous years, putting enrollment on track to drop for the second year in a row under the Trump administration. (Hellmann, 12/17)