Supreme Court Denies Request To Fast-Track Health Law Case Giving GOP Breathing Room Before Elections
Had the Supreme Court granted the House Democrats and states defending the law a quick court date, a ruling may have been issued before the 2020 elections that could have done damage to President Donald Trump and other Republicans. With the law's growing popularity, it's widely viewed as a winning topic for Democrats.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Will Not Rule Quickly On Obamacare Appeal
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from Democratic state officials and the House of Representatives to quickly consider whether to hear an appeal of a decision with the potential to wipe out the entire Affordable Care Act. The move means the court will almost certainly not hear the case in its current term, which ends in June. Democrats consider health care a winning issue, and they wanted the court to act quickly to keep the fate of the Affordable Care Act in the public eye during the presidential election. In the meantime, the law remains almost entirely intact but faces an uncertain future. (Liptak, 1/21)
Reuters:
U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Obamacare Appeal
The House and states including New York and California want the Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a Dec. 18 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the law's "individual mandate" that required people to obtain health insurance ran afoul of the Constitution. The petitions asked the Supreme Court to hear the case quickly and issue a definitive ruling by the end of June. (1/21)
CNN:
Supreme Court Signals It Won't Consider Obamacare Challenge Before Election
In an effort to get the justices to review the lower court's decision, Donald Verrilli, a lawyer for the Democratic-led House, said in a filing earlier this month that the law is a "fixture of the American health-care system" and urged the justices in legal briefs to review the "remarkable" lower court decision that "threatens profound destabilization of the health care system."
"The present case represents yet another effort by litigants who disagree with the policy judgments embodied in the ACA to use the courts, rather than the democratic process, to undo the work of the people's elected representatives," the filing stated. (de Vogue, Cole and Bradner, 1/21)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Refuses To Fast-Track A Challenge To The Affordable Care Act
President Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, replied that the 5th Circuit decision simply preserved the status quo until a lower court could look more closely at which parts of the law should survive. He said it would be premature for the high court to intervene. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision itself does not warrant immediate review because it did not definitively resolve any question of practical consequence,” Francisco wrote. (Barnes, 1/21)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Democratic Appeals On Affordable Care Act
The law continues to remain in effect during the litigation, which began after a GOP-controlled Congress reduced the penalty under the insurance mandate to $0. The GOP-led states argued the elimination of the tax rendered the mandate unconstitutional. The appeals court has ordered a federal judge in Texas to reconsider what parts of the sprawling health law can remain in place, but the Democratic-led states and House were seeking to have the Supreme Court go ahead and rule that the entire law remains valid. (Kendall and Armour, 1/21)
Politico:
Supreme Court Won't Fast-Track Obamacare Case
The outcome means Trump will face less pressure to articulate an Obamacare replacement plan during the campaign. Republicans failed to agree on an Obamacare replacement when they had complete control of the federal government in the first two years of Trump's presidency, and they haven’t come up with a new plan since then. A health care proposal developed by Trump's Medicare chief Seema Verma was nixed last summer over her colleagues' concerns it would have actually strengthened Obamacare rather than replace it. The lawsuit's lingering threat to Obamacare exposes Trump to attacks that he is still trying to gut the law's popular protections for people with preexisting conditions. (Luthi, 1/21)
Roll Call:
Supreme Court Denies Request For Expedited Appeal Of Challenge To 2010 Health Care Law
House Democrats campaigned in 2018 on their support for those protections, which guarantee that people cannot be denied or charged more for health insurance because of a prior illness. The health care debate in the Democratic presidential primary has so far focused on the differences between establishing a single-payer plan or a public option, but all of the Democratic candidates support a continuation of the pre-existing condition protections and the rest of the 2010 law. (McIntire, 1/21)
NBC News:
Supreme Court Won't Rule On Obamacare Before Election Day, Declines To Fast-Track
Tuesday's brief Supreme Court order does not indicate whether the court intends to hear the case, after the normal time for the opposing sides to submit their legal briefs, or allow it to continue working its way through the lower court appeals.(Williams, 1/21)
Modern Healthcare:
Supreme Court Denies Quick Review Of Obamacare Challenge
"By declining to take up this case in an expedited manner, the Supreme Court leaves in place the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the Affordable Care Act. That uncertainty has already spread across the healthcare system," said Margaret Murray, CEO of the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, which represents safety-net health plans. "Plans will postpone investment and innovation in the individual market, dampening competition. Consumers will be left to wonder about the fate of important consumer protections against discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, lifetime coverage caps and rescissions of coverage." (Livingston, 1/21)
Bloomberg:
Obamacare Backers Lose Supreme Court Bid For A Hearing This Term
The fast-track request was a long shot, given the Supreme Court’s calendar and its already-packed docket. The court has accepted cases involving abortion, guns, LGBT discrimination, the DACA deferred-deportation program and subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s financial information. All are scheduled to be decided by late June. (Stohr, 1/21)
Meanwhile —
The Hill:
Trump Health Chief: 'Not A Need' For ObamaCare Replacement Plan Right Now
Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said Tuesday that “there’s really not a need” for the Trump administration to put forward an ObamaCare replacement plan at the moment. Azar was asked where the administration’s replacement for the health law is in an interview on the "Kevin Wall Radio Show." He replied that there is not a need for one until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on a GOP-backed lawsuit seeking to overturn the law. “There's really not a need for a replacement of the Affordable Care Act unless and until there's a final Supreme Court decision,” Azar said, adding that would be “some time away.” The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to expedite the case, meaning it will not be decided until after the 2020 election. (Sullivan, 1/21)
