Fifth Circuit lets Obamacare survive until after the 2020 election.
Popular in News & Politics
- A State Supreme Court Justice Decries the “Horrors and Treachery” Coming From SCOTUS
- Trump Made a Freudian Slip About Abortion. You Probably Missed It.
- How Bad Are Biden’s Polling Numbers Right Now? Are You Sitting Down?
- The Prosecution Actually Wants the Jury to Think Michael Cohen Is a Pathetic Scumbag
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5thCircuit does not want to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act less than a year before the election. But it may still invalidate the whole law—from Medicaid expansion to tax credits to protections for preexisting conditions—if given the right opportunity down the road.
That’s the main takeaway from the court’s long-awaited decision on Wednesday, which marches the ACA to the gallows, places a noose around its neck, and declines to open the trapdoor just yet. The majority accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that the law’s individual mandate has become unconstitutional, but stopped short of ruling that the remainder of the act must fall with it. Instead, the majority delayed the execution, sending the case back down to the district court to decide whether more than 20 million Americans will lose their health insurance.
Wednesday’s ruling in Texas v. United Statesembraces a bizarre theory that conservatives cooked up after Congress repealed the individual mandate’s tax penalty in 2017. The Supreme Court upheld that mandate, which imposed a tax on individuals who lack insurance, under Congress’ taxing power. But Congress zeroed out the tax penalty in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, maintaining the mandate while ensuring that nobody who violated it would have to pay a dime.
A coalition of red states led by Texas then sued, arguing that Congress had rendered the whole law invalid. These states argued that if the mandate no longer collects any revenue, then it can no longer be sustained as a tax. And if it’s not a tax, it’s not constitutional. Then the states went further, insisting that if the mandate is struck down, the rest of the law must be nullified as well. The mandate, they claimed, is “inseverable” from everything else, meaning Congress would not have wanted the ACA to stand without its mandate. It is therefore the courts’ duty to kill every provision of the complex law.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementU.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with this argument in late 2018 and ruled the entire ACA unlawful. His decision was widely panned by scholars across the political spectrum. Yet Donald Trump’s Department of Justice told O’Connor that it agreed the ACA had become unconstitutional. The task of defending the law fell on a coalition of blue states who didn’t want the federal judiciary to strip their residents of health care.
Five months after reviewing O’Connor’s decision, the 5thCircuit has issued its verdict, which is deeply muddled. On the one hand, the majority—Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Kurt D. Engelhardt, a Trump appointee—agreed that the mandate is unconstitutional. In her majority opinion, Elrod wrote that the mandate has become “a command to purchase health insurance” and that zeroing out the penalty “does not render the provision any less of a command.” In fact, the mandate has become more burdensome by compelling individuals to buy health insurance instead of letting them pay a tax instead. This theory defies logic, since the penalty for violating this “command” does not exist. As Judge Carolyn Dineen King, a Jimmy Carter appointee, explained in dissent, “it boggles the mind to suggest that Congress intended to turn a nonmandatory provision into a mandatory provision by doing away with the only means of incentivizing compliance with that provision.”
Advertisement The majority may be waiting until after the 2020 election before finishing off the ACA.Still, it shouldn’t really matter whether the mandate is unconstitutional, since it is already inoperative. The real action in this case involves severability: how much of the law must fall with the mandate. And here, the 5thCircuit punts. O’Connor’s severability analysis was cursory: He wrote that when Congress passed the ACA in 2010, it viewed the mandate as “essential,” so it cannot be severed. This reasoning, Elrod wrote, is “incomplete.” First, O’Connor ignored the fact that when Congress amended the ACA in 2017, it decided the mandate was no longer essential, because it rendered it inoperative while the rest of the law lived on. Second, O’Connor didn’t even bother to explain “how particular segments” of the ACA “are inextricably linked to the individual mandate.”
Advertisement AdvertisementThus, Elrod instructed O’Connor to “employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.” But she refused to provide guidance about which provisions might survive, giving O’Connor carte blanche to kill it all if he so chooses. Her only hint is a passage asking how an ACA rule directing restaurants to disclose the calories in menu items relates to the individual mandate. That hint insinuates that only the law’s minor sections can stand, while its chief provisions—Medicaid expansion, the exchanges, tax subsidies, nondiscrimination rules—must go.
Advertisement AdvertisementElrod’s decision kicks the can down the road, giving O’Connor another chance to ceremonially incinerate the ACA, which he will surely do. Then the 5thCircuit will review his work once again. Given Elrod and Engelhardt’s apparent hostility toward the law, they may well decide, when there is no longer a presidential election around the corner, that O’Connor is right to demolish it. Wednesday’s opinion is either an act of cowardice or a stalling tactic. The majority may be waiting until after the 2020 election before finishing off the ACA.
AdvertisementIf that is indeed the majority’s plan, it is a risky one. The ACA’s defenders will likely now appeal to the Supreme Court, where five justices—the liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts—will probably reject this cockamamie plot to repeal the law by judicial fiat. Some justices might be inclined to wait and see where the lower courts land on severability before wading in. But this nonsense has already gone on for far too long. Elrod and Engelhardt had an opportunity to be the adults in the room, and they failed. It’s now time for the chief justice to step in, once again, and quash this latest lawless assault on the ACA.
Tweet Share Share Comment-
The Techies Who Lunch潮汕味,世界享!汕头美食亮相预制菜“第一会”莱西市召开“碧初味猕猴桃专业合作社”媒体见面会五届市委第五轮巡察完成首批进驻Swifties for Kamala raises over $100,000 in donations for Harris campaign“与风景独处 — 白羽平风景油画作品展”开幕 免费向公众开放山东移动青岛分公司举办2023年”全员赋能 攀登提升”网络技能竞赛踏过三月早天里的云烟,来“逛春天”吧!24 Museums Dedicated to Black History9月20日至21日青岛地铁8号线加开机场直达快车 延长运营时间
下一篇:How to watch 'Kinds of Kindness': When is it streaming?
- ·Spate of defections show Kim Jong
- ·北纬30度公园地面提升改造项目有序推进
- ·中国平安发布“新保险合同准则专项说明”及2022年业绩回溯
- ·中国平安连续十年蝉联“亚洲最受尊崇企业” 揽获《机构投资者》杂志七项大奖
- ·NASA says Earth just had the hottest day ever recorded
- ·潮汕味,世界享!汕头美食亮相预制菜“第一会”
- ·让春运更加便捷顺畅温馨安康
- ·青岛港湾职院两部教材入选首批“十四五”职教国家规划教材名单
- ·US to oppose North Korean worker dispatch to occupied Ukrainian territory: State Dept.
- ·工行雅安分行积极开展义务植树活动
- ·绗崄涓夊眾涓浗姘戦棿鑹烘湳鑺傚湪闈掑矝瑗挎捣宀告柊鍖哄紑灞曟枃鑹烘儬姘戞紨鍑篲涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·挪庄大院:改造不改“人情味” 留人留住“城市乡愁”
- ·How to unblock Xnxx for free
- ·招商银行青岛分行:擘画高质量发展新图景
- ·音乐与时尚的“邂逅”!无极四重奏专场音乐会精彩上演
- ·2024清马开始领物了!请查收这份最具清远特色的参赛包
- ·应对高温 户外驿站送清凉
- ·挪庄大院:改造不改“人情味” 留人留住“城市乡愁”
- ·“玉兔迎新春”萝卜艺术雕刻展暨“新春游市北、文化大踩街”开启
- ·鎵撳崱宕傚北锛屾媿鍑哄北娴蜂箣椋庨!绗簩灞娾€滃搧璐ㄥ磦灞扁€濈煭瑙嗛澶ц禌姝e紡寮€鍚痏涓浗灞变笢缃慱闈掑矝
- ·10 Places to Get to Know Paul Bunyan
- ·科技赋能文旅新体验 青岛市北区文化圈交互地图首轮线下打卡活动启动
- ·青岛莱西市南墅镇城市更新再提速 为营商环境赋能
- ·文化和自然遗产日,来青岛博物馆看拓片展、听古琴讲座
- ·Sinner vs. Michelsen 2024 livestream: Watch US Open for free
- ·多彩志愿服务 点亮居民生活