ACA

  • August 4, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

    *This post originally appeared on Balkinization.

    The Texas challenge to DAPA

    In what the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty tweeted as “The most underplayed story of the day,” on Friday, July 10, two of the three judges on a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel made clear, during a contentious oral argument, their intent to leave in place a District Court injunction shutting down the Administration’s November 2014 decision to confer “deferred action” treatment on undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and on undocumented individuals who were less than 16 years old when they arrived here, if they come forward and pass background checks for criminal records or otherwise priority deportable activities.  As detailed by Marty Lederman and others, under regulations adopted by the Reagan Administration, and endorsed in 1986 amendments to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, deferred action treatment triggers freedom to work and receive benefits such as the Low Income Tax Credit and Social Security.

    The court argument concerned a legal challenge to the Administration’s program, officially styled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), filed by Texas’ high decibel conservative Governor Greg Abbott, on behalf of 25 other Republican-led states.  Earlier, on February 17, Texas federal trial judge Andrew Hanen had ruled against the Obama administration, and issued an injunction barring implementation of DAPA nationwide.  Texas’ Solicitor General had good reason to file in Hanen’s court; he was well-known for previous over-the-top accusations that the Department of Homeland Security “is clearly not” enforcing immigration laws, “helping those who violate them,” and, indeed, “completing the criminal mission” of transborder human traffickers.  Given the echoing hostility vividly on display from Fifth Circuit Judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Elrod, their decision can pretty well be counted upon to leave Hanen’s injunction in place.  To have any hope of salvaging the DAPA program before leaving office in January 2017, President Obama will likely be back before the Supreme Court in a few months.

  • August 3, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

    *This post originally appeared on Balkinization.

    Chief Justice John Roberts sent President Obama off for the July 4 holiday in what must have been a good mood, secure that his signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, had survived a second lawsuit designed to cripple it.  In King v. BurwellRoberts had mobilized a 6-3 majority to reject a claim by health reform opponents that ACA-prescribed tax credits were not available on federally run exchanges.  In addition to helping secure Obama’s legacy, the decision evidently bumped up Obama’s public approval ratings.  But the celebration must be tempered.  This big win is not the President’s doing, nor that of the Executive Branch he controls.  Instead, it was due to two conservative justices, the Chief and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose agendas, while generally divergent from his, meshed on this important occasion.  How often will these stars align again? 

    That question is not academic.  King v. Burwell is by no means the last case in which the President’s political opponents are seeking to cancel or gut his key initiatives.  Indeed, two currently await decisions in lower federal courts. The first lawsuit is Texas’ challenge to the Administration’s immigration policy—to defer, on a case-by-case basis, removal of some four million undocumented immigrants who do not fall within DHS priorities for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. The second lawsuit is House Republicans’ challenge to significant components of the administration’s ACA implementation.  A third challenge, to the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan —the crown jewel of Obama’s anti-global warming agenda— is likely when its regulations are finalized in early August.

    Over the next three days, I’ll discuss the upcoming challenges to Obama’s policy agenda. I begin, however, with a discussion of what Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell might mean for these lawsuits, and others that may follow them.

  • August 3, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Stacey Dembo, Law Offices of Stacey J. Dembo

    This summer will mark two important milestones for public benefit programs in the United States. The Social Security Act will be celebrating its 80th anniversary on August 14th‒President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on that date in 1935. And last week marked the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the amendments that expanded the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This 50th anniversary provides an opportunity for us to reflect on the vital lifelines Medicare and Medicaid provide for our nation’s most vulnerable.

    It’s hard to believe that before 1966 roughly half of all people 65 and over and many people with disabilities, children, pregnant women and low-income working Americans were unable to afford the medical care they needed. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the amendments creating Medicare and Medicaid, he said the programs would correct “the injustice which denies the miracle of healing to the old and to the poor.”

    Now 50 years later, Medicare and Medicaid together cover over 100 million people, or about 1 in 3 Americans. Medicare covers almost all elderly Americans and some younger adults who are disabled. Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays, nursing home care and hospice, is financed by the payroll taxes workers and employers pay. Medicare Part B, which covers doctors’ visits, surgeries and medical devices like wheelchairs, is paid for by Medicare recipients through income-based premiums. Medicaid, on the other hand, is financed via federal and state funds. It covers low-income adults, people with disabilities, half of all low-income children and pregnant women.

  • March 7, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Rob Weiner, formerly Associate Deputy Attorney General In the United States Department of Justice, is a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP. This post first appeared at Balkinization.

    During the Supreme Court oral argument in King v. Burwell, the challengers persisted in claiming that the language of the Affordable Care Act is absolutely clear, that the principle of constitutional avoidance, as well as Chevron deference and any other relevant interpretive presumptions are unavailing because there is one and only one possible interpretation of the key provision at issue, Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code.  That is in fact what the challengers must show—that their reading of the statute to deny subsidies in States with Federal Exchanges is incontrovertible. 

    But four Justices (apparently), the IRS, the Solicitor General, 22 States, and leading academic experts in statutory interpretation applying the definitions in the Act have read this same language to mean that tax subsidies are available in all States.  They have drawn this conclusion from the text of the Act itself, not by rewriting the language to promote the statutory purpose, but by giving it what they have concluded is a reasonable—in fact, compelling—interpretation.  Of course, the fact of a dispute regarding the meaning of statutory provisions does not by itself show the issue to be contestable.  But here, there is a critical mass of able, respected readers of the statute who differ with the challengers’ conclusion.  To label the interpretation by these readers as impossible, at odds with the English language, or nonsensical is to deny either their literacy or their candor.  Neither is in doubt. 

    As Justice Kennedy suggested during the argument, the clarity of the statute is also measured against the constitutional requisites of cooperative federalism.  That is another reason the Government should prevail in King.  As the challengers read the law, residents of States that fail to set up insurance Exchanges do not receive tax subsidies to help them afford health insurance, but those States remain subject to the insurance market reforms requiring insurance companies to offer insurance without regard to preexisting conditions and to price insurance based on community characteristics rather than the individual customer’s health situation.  If adopted, the challengers’ interpretation would send insurance markets in those States into a death spiral and impose hardships on millions of people. 

  • February 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Eric J. Segall, the Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law

    *This post is part of the ACSblog King v. Burwell symposium.

    The plaintiffs in the latest Obamacare case, King v. Burwell, to be argued next Wednesday in the Supreme Court, have (so far) pulled off an amazing magic trick right in front of the eyes of the American people and possibly the Supreme Court of the United States. They, along with Professor Jonathan Adler, the architect of the litigation strategy, have focused their audiences’ attention on one part of a 900 page law that, read in isolation, supports their case while masterfully diverting the audience’s attention away from the part of the law that shows why their claims have no merit. They have crated this illusion not simply by focusing on one specific statutory provision (as others have shown), but based on the order in which they have asked the Court to interpret the statutory provisions at issue. This may seem too obvious but the best magic tricks are often based on a single instance of substantial misdirection.

    The plaintiffs and Professor Adler tell the following story: They start with Section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and argue that it requires “qualified individuals” eligible for federal health insurance subsidies to purchase their insurance from an “exchange established by the state.” The federal government is not a “state,” they argue (persuasively) and therefore the plain text of Section 1311 forbids subsidies on federal exchanges. That common-sense interpretation, they claim, can only be overcome if the result is absurd. They argue that it is not absurd, and thus the plaintiffs have to win.

    This discussion of the issue, set up by the plaintiffs, and their lawyers and allies through lower court briefs, social media, and newspaper op-eds, while successful at putting the government on the defensive, is wildly out of touch with the true legal nature of the case.

    The question whether the Secretary of the IRS exceeded his legal authority by interpreting the ACA to allow subsidies on federal exchanges starts, not with Section 1311 as the plaintiffs would have you believe, but instead with the  section of the law actually relied on by the Secretary for that authority--Section 1321.  If we start there, with that baseline, it is easy to see why the plaintiffs’ claims have no merit.