SCOTUS Rejects Republican Challenge To The ACA – ‘Obamacare’ Lives!

Background History

H/T HealthAffairs.org.

On February 26, 2018, attorneys general and governors from 20 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to enjoin the Affordable Care Act (ACA) following repeal of the individual mandate penalty.  The states are Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona [Mark Brnovich], Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Maine (via Governor Paul LePage).

In their complaint, filed in federal district court in the Northern District of Texas, the states argue that the repeal of the individual mandate penalty in 2019 is fatal to the ACA and, as such, the entire law should be struck down. In summary, they argue that the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. Now that Congress eliminated the individual mandate penalty beginning in 2019, the mandate is no longer enforceable as a tax and thus is no longer valid. They further argue that the entirety of the ACA relies on the mandate and, without the penalty, the entirety of the ACA is also unconstitutional.

A federal district court in Texas agreed and declared the entire ACA invalid (although the law remained in place). Many of district court’s legal conclusions, from standing to severability, were criticized by conservative legal scholars, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and the National Review editorial board, among others.

In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court, agreeing that the mandate is now unconstitutional but remanding the case for additional analysis on the question of severability. One judge disagreed with these conclusions and filed a lengthy dissent arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that, in any event, the mandate remains constitutional and severable from the rest of the ACA. She opined that there was no need to remand, especially on severability.

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors, led by California, and the House had intervened to defend the ACA and appealed the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear California’s appeal and separately granted a conditional cross-petition filed by the plaintiffs. This means the full scope of legal issues in Texas would be considered by the Supreme Court: whether the plaintiffs have standing, whether the penalty-less individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether the rest of the ACA can be severed from the mandate, and the scope of relief.

California and the House were supported by a wide range of amici who explained to the Court that invalidating the ACA would severely disrupt the health care system. The law has been in place for a full decade and touches on every part of the health care system. If the plaintiffs and the Trump administration were successful before the Court, millions of people will lose their coverage and millions more will lose protections for preexisting conditions, among many other changes and upheavals.

Today’s Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, the majority opinion written by Justice Breyer and (surprisingly) joined by a concurring opinion from Justice Thomas, rejected the challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by Texas and 20 Republican state attorneys general, including our own loser Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who is now running for U.S. Senate.

The Court did not reach the merits of this meritless case. Instead, the Court dismissed on the groinds that the plaintffs do not have standing (the legal right to sue) to challenge the individual mandate because they have not shown a past or future injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct. “We proceed no further than standing,” Breyer writes. Opinion in California v. Texas.

For these reasons, we conclude that the plaintiffs in this suit failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the spe- cific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional. They have failed to show that they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the Act’s minimum essential coverage provision. Therefore, we reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judg- ment in respect to standing, vacate the judgment, and re- mand the case with instructions to dismiss.

Justice Thomas in his concurrence, as you might expect, indicated his heart is with the dissenters but standing and injury are a requirement, and are not present here:

There is much to commend JUSTICE ALITO’s account of “our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy.” Post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). This Court has gone to great lengths to rescue the Act from its own text … But, whatever the Act’s dubious history in this Court, we must assess the current suit on its own terms. And, here, there is a fundamental problem with the arguments ad- vanced by the plaintiffs in attacking the Act—they have not identified any unlawful action that has injured them. Today’s result is thus not the consequence of the Court once again rescuing the Act, but rather of us adjudicating the particular claims the plaintiffs chose to bring.

* * *

On all of this JUSTICE ALITO and I agree. Where we part ways is on the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled. The Constitution gives this Court only the power to resolve “Cases” or “Controversies.” Art. III, §2. As everyone agrees, we have interpreted this language to require a plaintiff to present an injury that is traceable to a particu- lar “unlawful” action. And in light of the specific theories and arguments advanced in this suit, I do not believe that the plaintiffs have carried this burden. As the majority explains in detail, the individual plaintiffs allege only harm caused by the bare existence of an unlawful statute that does not impose any obligations or consequences. That is not enough. The state plaintiffs’ arguments fail for similar reasons.

Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch dissented. Justice Alito in his dissent caustically says that California v. Texas “is the third installment of a trilogy.” If only this were true. Republicans will never stop filing lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act. It is their white whale and they are Captain Ahab. They are obsessed with denying Americans affordable health care.

Not today, losers. The Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare” survives and remains the law of the land.

A big win for the American people.

There’s no better day than today to sign up for quality, affordable health care at https://t.co/gRX1fGFEzj.

With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it’s here to stay. https://t.co/5GPl9aR8uB

— President Biden (@POTUS) June 17, 2021

Now all 20 of the GQP state attorneys general who brought this frivolous lawsuit to deny Americans affordable health care should see their political careers come to an end.

Buh-bye Brno.

I will do the SCOTUS Watch review of opinions this week in a later post. There remains 15 cases yet to be decided.