Justice Department Refuses To Defend Health Law In Court, Saying Certain Provisions Are Unconstitutional
The provisions that should be "struck down" include protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions from being charged more or being denied coverage, according to the Justice Department. Now, it will be up to several Democratic state attorneys general to defend the law, and they have already received permission to intervene in the case.
The New York Times:
Justice Dept. Says Crucial Provisions Of Obamacare Are Unconstitutional
The Trump administration told a federal court on Thursday that it would no longer defend crucial provisions of the Affordable Care Act that protect consumers with pre-existing medical conditions. Under those provisions of the law, insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions. The Justice Department said the provisions were part of an unconstitutional scheme that required most Americans to carry health insurance. (Pear, 6/7)
The Associated Press:
Justice Department Takes Aim At Heart Of Health Law
The decision, announced in a filing in a federal court in Texas, is a rare departure from the Justice Department's practice of defending federal laws in court. Texas and other Republican-led states are suing to strike down the entire law because Congress recently repealed a provision that people without health insurance must pay a fine. The repeal takes effect next year. Texas says that without the fine in place the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional and that the entire law should be struck down as a result. (Sherman, 6/8)
The Washington Post:
Trump Administration Won’t Defend ACA In Case Brought By GOP States
The bold swipe at the ACA, a Republican whipping post since its 2010 passage, does not immediately affect any of its provisions. But it puts the law on far more wobbly legal footing in the case, which is being heard by a GOP-appointed judge who has in other recent cases ruled against more minor aspects. The administration does not go as far as the Texas attorney general and his counterparts. In their suit, lodged in February in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, they argue that the entire law is now invalid. By contrast, the Justice brief and letter say many other aspects of the law can survive because they can be considered legally distinct from the insurance mandate and such consumer protections as a ban on charging more or refusing coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. (Goldstein, 6/7)
The Wall Street Journal:
Justice Department Won’t Defend Affordable Care Act In Lawsuit Brought By States
The decision to attack the ACA in this way involves a legal, political and policy gamble by the Trump administration, suggesting how much the president still wants to dismantle his predecessor’s signature health law after a failed ACA repeal effort by Republicans a year ago. The move could rattle the insurance markets and shake up the GOP message on health care months before the midterm elections. (Armour, 6/7)
Bloomberg:
Trump Sides With Texas, Won't Defend Obamacare In Court
While U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that no reasonable arguments exist to defend Obamacare, California led a coalition of 15 states and D.C. to fight Texas’s suit, saying the individual mandate has twice survived Supreme Court review and attempts by Congress to repeal the law, thus legitimizing it. Stripping away Obamacare would create a health crisis by putting at risk some $500 billion in health-care funding, according to a statement issued by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. (Mehrotra, 6/8)
Modern Healthcare:
Justice Department Won't Defend Obamacare In GOP States' Lawsuit
It will be up to several Democratic state attorneys general to defend the law, and they have already received permission to intervene in the case. A core group of blue state attorneys general are also fighting the federal government to revive cost-sharing reduction payments for insurers. (Teichert, 6/7)
CQ:
Administration Sides With GOP States In Health Law Challenge
Democrats quickly criticized the DOJ for declining to defend the law, and warned the move could lead health insurers to request higher premiums for plans sold on the exchanges set up under the law next year. "By sowing even more uncertainty into the health care markets, tonight’s action could encourage insurance companies to propose even higher rate increases than the double-digit hikes already threatening to hit American families next year," Brad Woodhouse, campaign director of Protect Our Care, said. (McIntire, 6/7)
