A three-judge federal court panel denied Thursday the request by two Obamacare enrollees to intervene in an ongoing lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act by House Republicans. The enrollees had argued that they should be allowed to take up the defense of subsidies in the law targeted in the lawsuit because there was reason to believe that the Trump administration, once President-elect Donald Trump was inaugurated, would change the federal government’s position in opposing the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed in 2014, argues that ACA subsidies paid out by the Obama administration using Treasury Department funds are illegal because they were not appropriated by Congress. The payments, known as cost-sharing reduction payments, subsidize insurers for keeping out-of-pockets costs down for low-income consumers, as is mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Health policy experts contend that withdrawing the subsidies would send the individual market into chaos, if not collapse it entirely.
The House Republicans scored a major victory when a federal judge ruled in their favor last May. The case was appealed, but House Republicans successfully sought a pause in the case, until the Trump was administration was in office, so they could discuss settling the case or possibly dropping the appeal. They have until late February to indicate those next steps.
What were the grounds for the court’s action? Is there anyone else (a state attorney-general, an insurance company receiving payments, etc.) who could intervene?
At least we know - and GOP pols know - there will be one court looking over their shoulder to make sure the public doesn’t get the short end as the ACA is revisited. GOP thought they could just gut the Act without scrutiny; now, not so much!
Ms Sneed, I’ve grown to really admire your reporting for TPM since signing on, but this post is insufficient. As is evident by Curmudgeon, there are many among us who want to know basic facts such as the basis for the decision and which court was involved. Some of us are even lawyers.
This is intended as entirely constructive.
Here guys, this is the ruling from Judge ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge
;
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HofR-challenge-to-ACA-DCt-5-12-16.pdf
Read away. I would love to hear a lawyers take.
Looked up Judge Collyer’s resume: ‘W’ appointee, confirmed by GOP Congress, 2002. Appointed last year by another W appointee, Chief Roberts, to a 7yr-term on the FISA Court. So you know she’s got the interests of America’s common man at heart /snark.
Justices installed by the GOP since about 1995 tend to be fully doctrinaire right-wingers, so her vote’s no surprise. (Roberts’ couple of veers to reality have made him persona non grata at many events, but the GOP’s corporate masters can’t remove him.)
Haven’t read the opinion, don’t know the vote or the other judges on the panel. Garland (appropriate ascendant to the Sup Ct if Dems had a spine) is the head of the DC District Court. So appellants might get a full panel (en banc?) hearing instead of settling for the 3-judge panel.
We’ll see how this play.
Heil Trump.