Judge Reed O’Connor sided with 18 Republican attorneys general and two governors who argued that without the tax mandate, the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. O’Connor presides in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which is based in Dallas.
The federal court ruling said that the latest tax bill, which eliminated the tax penalty in the ACA for not buying insurance, made the law unconstitutional. The ruling was in conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling that validated the law based on the fact that the penalty was a tax, which the federal government can do. But the 2017 tax bill ended the penalty, and thus, O’Connor argues, the constitutionality of the law.
Steve Love, the President and CEO of the Dallas-Fort Worth hospital council lamented the ruling in a statement.
“The Dallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council is extremely disappointed in the federal district court ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Our member hospitals and health systems know this action puts many Texans health coverage at risk. Many of our citizens that have chronic illness, pre-existing conditions and seek health coverage and access will find it more difficult due to this ruling. We urge a stay in this decision until a higher court can review it. Texas unfortunately leads the nation in having the highest percent of uninsured in the nation ( and has for the last 10 years ) so it is unfortunate that this ruling has occurred at this time. DFWHC will continue to advocate to protect coverage and access for our fellow North Texas patients and their families. This ruling keeps the healthcare industry in uncertainty regarding coverage and access.”
The case, Texas vs. the United States, was filed in February. In the 55-page decision, O’Connor writes, “If a party shows that a policymaker exceeded the authority granted it by the Constitution, the fruit of that unauthorized action cannot stand.” Because the penalty was essential to the law, O’Connor argues, the law can’t stand.
The decision arrived just before the end of this year’s enrollment period, but coverage is not expected to be impacted by those who already signed up. The 16 Democratic attorneys general who intervened have said they will appeal to the Supreme Court, according to Kaiser Health News.
The administrator in charge of the healthcare exchanges at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tweeted: “The recent federal court decision is still moving through the courts, and 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.”
President Trump weighed in on Twitter as well.
As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster! Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions. Mitch and Nancy, get it done!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2018
But legal experts doubt the ruling. Nicholas Bagley, an expert in health law from the University of Michigan Law School expressed doubts that the entire act, which includes an expansion of Medicare, regulations for calorie counts at restaurants, should be invalidated by the mandate.
If you were ever tempted to think that right-wing judges weren't activist — that they were only "enforcing the Constitution" or "reading the statute" — this will persuade you to knock it off. This is insanity in print, and it will not stand up on appeal.
— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) December 15, 2018
