Texas Judge’s Ruling That Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional Could Leave the Law Fatally Wounded — or Even Stronger
December 16, 2018
More than 130 million Americans woke up Saturday morning to the news that their health care coverage has been thrown into doubt.
That’s because, late Friday night, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act — including its exchange health plans, Medicaid expansion and its provisions affecting Medicare’s prescription drugs benefit — is unconstitutional, lock, stock and barrel.
As my colleague Noam Levey reports, Judge Reed O’Connor didn’t issue an injunction against the law, so the federal and state governments still can enforce it, for now. Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Seema Verma, who oversees the ACA, said Friday that “the exchanges are still open for business and we will continue with open enrollment. There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan.”
I do not believe this opinion is long for this world. However superficially plausible the plaintiff states’ claims initially appear, they melt upon inspection.
On the other hand, President Donald Trump crowed on Twitter that “Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!” He happens to be wrong, technically, but that hasn’t stopped him in the past.
Legal experts across the political spectrum say O’Connor’s decision is so flawed and threadbare of logic that it’s likely to be overturned, and rapidly, by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. It could also be tossed by the Supreme Court, which has upheld the constitutionality of the ACA several times.
If that happens, removing a last-gasp challenge to the law filed by Texas and 19 other red states, the ACA could end up stronger than ever, its provisions etched into the American health care system for the long term.
But in today’s political and juridical environment anything can happen. So supporters of the law, who are now the majority of Americans, need to keep their fingers crossed.
The Texas case was the latest iteration of conservatives’ eight-year campaign against the Affordable Care Act, which included scores of repeal attempts in Congress and at least three trips to the Supreme Court. This time around, the red states argued that when the Republican Congress reduced the penalty for not carrying health care coverage to zero — a provision of the tax cut Trump signed last December — the result was to nullify the whole law.
Their position was endorsed by the Trump administration, which withdrew its defense of the law before O’Connor in June, thus making the unconstitutionality of the law official Trump doctrine. But 16 blue states, led by California, won the right to defend the law in the federal government’s stead. On Friday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra denounced the ruling and pledged that “our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and well-being of all Americans.”
It’s proper to observe that the plaintiff states maneuvered carefully to bring their case before O’Connor by filing it in a branch courthouse where he’s the only federal judge on call. They know their man: O’Connor was a Senate Republican staff functionary without judicial experience when he was named to the bench by George W. Bush in 2007.
Since then, he’s been a reliable vote against progressive programs in almost all particulars, ruling against gun control measures, the ACA’s rules against gender discrimination and Obama administration rules barring discrimination against transgender public school students.
Legal authorities were braced for Friday’s ACA ruling from O’Connor, who had made no secret during proceedings in his Fort Worth courtroom of his disdain for the law. Many thought he might invalidate the ACA’s rules requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants and forbidding them to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions. They were shocked by the breadth of his conclusion that the whole law had to go. “Absolutely insane” was the judgment of Nicholas Bagley of the University of Michigan law school, a long-term supporter of the ACA.
His view was echoed by Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve School of Law, a conservative who was the architect of a legal strategy that aimed to overturn much of the law’s premium subsidies (but was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2015). Adler called O’Connor’s decision “surprising — and surprisingly weak.”
“I do not believe this opinion is long for this world. However superficially plausible the plaintiff states’ claims initially appear, they melt upon inspection,” Adler said.
Let’s take a quick look at O’Connor’s reasoning. He asserts that in enacting the law in 2010, Congress stated that the individual mandate was “essential” to the operation of the ACA. The mandate imposed a tax penalty on anyone without a health insurance. Because the Supreme Court had found the tax penalty to be constitutional, O’Connor wrote, when Congress reduced the penalty to zero, the individual mandate became unconstitutional.
The reason, he wrote, is that Congress made no provision for “severability” in the ACA — that is, providing that if some of its elements were overturned, the others would remain in force. O’Connor argues that the 2017 Congress, which zeroed out the tax penalty, didn’t say what it intended to happen to the rest of the law. “There is no answer,” he wrote, so the 2010 Congress’s view that the law must stand or fall in conjunction with the mandate must prevail.
The flaw in this reasoning, as Bagley, Adler and others point out, is that the 2017 Congress did make its view of severability clear. It did so by invalidating the tax penalty, but not repealing the law. So in 2017, Congress had come around to the view that the rest of the ACA could survive without the mandate.
“We know for certain that (Congress) believed it could safely ditch the mandate penalty and keep the rest of the ACA intact,” Bagley wrote in June. “We know because that’s what it did.”
The chief imponderable from O’Connor’s ruling is its political impact. Even if it’s tossed out on appeal, the ruling demonstrates how far Republicans will go to undermine the Affordable Care Act. As Ezra Klein posits at Vox.com, that’s an object lesson for Democrats and other supporters and beneficiaries of the ACA, and a signal that they should push ahead on their proposals for Medicare for all or other single-payer or universal health coverage ideas.
Republicans are never going to give up this fight as long as there’s a single one remaining in Congress with a single breath left in his or her body. There’s no point in trying to reach an agreement with this group, especially now that the results are in from the midterm elections — which Democrats won by campaigning heavily on health care issues. The American public wants its health coverage to be secure from political attacks, and the Democrats should heed its call.
©2018 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In The News
Hospitals will soon have to share price information they have long kept obscured — including how big a discount they offer cash-paying patients and rates negotiated with insurers — under a rule finalized Friday by the Trump administration. In a companion proposal, the administration announced it... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A Food and Drug Administration official told a U.S. Senate committee this week that new regulations to control vaping are likely coming soon, but couldn’t say when. His testimony drew rebukes and words of frustration from members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and... Read More
The newest faculty member at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences has a great smile — and a wagging tail. Shetland, not quite 2 years old, is half golden retriever, half Labrador retriever. As of this fall, he is also a lieutenant commander in... Read More
WASHINGTON — Year by year, resistance to extending Medicaid to more low-income Americans in conservative states has given way. That trend seems likely to continue into 2020. In some states, Democratic governors who favor expansion have replaced Republicans who were stalwart opponents. GOP critics have had... Read More
Lobbying campaigns and legislative battles have been underway for months as Congress tries to solve the problem of surprise billing, when patients face often exorbitant costs after they unknowingly receive care from an out-of-network doctor or hospital. As Congress considers various plans and negotiates behind the... Read More
Andrew Echeguren, 26, had his first psychotic episode when he was 15. He was working as an assistant coach at a summer soccer camp for kids when the lyrics coming out of his iPod suddenly morphed into racist and homophobic slurs, telling him to harm others... Read More