Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affordable Care Act Appeal
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday granted petitions filed by the House and Democratic state officials to consider a lower court ruling that threatens to wipe out the Affordable Care Act.
The underlying case was brought by a Republican state official who argued that when Congress removed the Act’s requirement that the majority of Americans obtain health insurance, it also effectively rendered the law unconstitutional.
Democrats, worried about a potential change in the composition of the court, asked the justices to quickly intervene despite the fact several lower courts have yet to issue rulings on pending cases in their jurisdiction.
Not only do they want to bolster the law — President Barack Obama’s signature achievement — but to also keep it in the public mind as voters across the United States go to the polls in their respective primaries.
That effort comes against a backdrop in which a federal judge in Texas has already ruled the entire Act was invalidated once the so-called “individual mandate” was removed. The judge stayed the ruling, pending appeals.
In December, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but declined to rule on the remainder of the Act, asking the lower court to reconsider the question in more detail.
The Democratically controlled states and the House asked the high court to place their appeal of that ruling on a fast track. However, in January, the court turned down that request.
In the alternative, the House and the Democratic states asked the court to hear the case on its regular schedule, arguing review is warranted because part of a federal law had been held to be unconstitutional.
They also argued the lower court rulings that have occurred create “problematic” uncertainty for individuals, businesses, and state and local governments who need to make important decisions based on their reliance on the Act.
In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “The Affordable Care Act is an essential pillar of health and financial security for American families, and its protections are even more critical during a dangerous epidemic.”
“But even in the middle of the coronavirus crisis, the Trump Administration continues to ask the court to destroy protections for people with pre-existing conditions and tear away health coverage from tens of millions of Americans,” she said.
Also commenting on Monday’s developments was Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who said, “If the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act, tens of millions of people will lose their health insurance and patients will be unable to access the critical treatments and medicines they need.
“In short, there will be widespread uncertainty, and Republicans have no alternative plan to prevent chaos. This is not hyperbole, it is the reality that we as a country must brace for if Republicans win their extremely harmful case,” Neal said.
In response, the Trump administration contends the case isn’t ripe for Supreme Court review, “because the court of appeals did not definitively resolve any question of practical consequence.”
As is their custom, the Justices did not explain why they are taking up the case or when it will be heard.
It is likely it will be heard and decided in the spring of 2021.
“The sooner the GOP’s dangerous anti-health care lawsuit is ended, the better,” Pelosi said. “Every day, the Affordable Care Act provides lifesaving protections and coverage for families across America. Democrats will continue to fight in the courts and the Congress to defend and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and lower health costs for all Americans.”
In The News
(This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first three parts can be read here, here and here.) The First Amendment Prevails The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case, officially, New York Times Co. v. United States, affirmed historical precedents... Read More
(This is the second part of a four-part series. The first installment can be read here.) To Publish or Not to Publish Upon his return to Washington, Sheehan and an editor booked a room at the Jefferson Hotel, where they spent weeks reading and summarizing the... Read More
The battle was joined on a Monday night. It was shortly after 7 p.m. on June 14, 1971, when a seething President Richard Nixon telephoned his attorney general, John Mitchell, and told him it was time to make the administration’s position clear to The New York... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday. The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — After more than a decade in which the Supreme Court moved gradually toward more leniency for minors convicted of murder, the justices on Thursday moved the other way.The high court ruled 6-3 along liberal-conservative lines against a Mississippi inmate sentenced to life in... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — Civil liberties groups are asking the Supreme Court to give the public access to opinions of the secretive court that reviews bulk email collection, warrantless internet searches and other government surveillance programs.The groups say in an appeal filed with the high court Monday... Read More