U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act in 7-2 Ruling

[1695814]

Can’t find a thread nor forum for ACA-related things, and this is more political than anything, so here it is.

Just got this alert from the Academy:

HEALTH ISSUES

Alert No. 2021-H-2

June 17, 2021

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act in 7-2 Ruling

The United States Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a challenge made to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought by a suit (Texas v. United States ) contending the law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. The challenge had the potential to invalidate the entire law. The majority ruling in California v. Texas today turned away the challenge from Republican-led states and the former Trump administration, finding they did not have the legal right to bring the case before the Court.

Read the full alert in PDF:

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/members/alerts/pdf/2021/2021-H-2.pdf

I’ll save you a click, there’s just one more paragraph:

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the court’s opinionin the 7-2 decision, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.The opinion held thatthe plaintiffs inthechallenge“failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional.”The opinion did not speak to the underlying issue of the mandate’s constitutionality.Legal challenges to the 2010 legislation previously came before the Supreme Court in 2012 and 2017.Today’s ruling leaves the entire ACA intact.

Reactions?
Was this ruling expected?

[Celalta]

I expected this to be the decision, but that’s not to say I wasn’t worried. I can’t imagine the chaos if it had turned out differently, Medicaid expansion being top of my list because that impacts the work I do.

[Indy]

I was concerned due to the three new Trump appointees.
I’m glad it was 7-2 not 5-4.

[Actuary321]

Even Thomas, who concurred, said the court got this one right, though he said the prior 2 judgements the court got wrong on the ACA.

[The_President]

Trump loses again!

[NormalDan]

maybe he’ll demand a recount

[The_President]

Maybe they will bring in the Cyber Ninjas!

[YankeeTripper]

2 of his 3 appointments voted against him.

[1695814]

He’ll never appoint them again, that’s for sure!

[Rastiln]

I’m a bit ignorant in this sphere, but I read something like a previous Texas court which ruled that there can be no penalties for not having health insurance caused the state to have no standing since there was no “injury” to anybody.

[1695814]

That’s about it:

Supreme Court tosses Texas-led Affordable Care Act challenge, preserving...

Here’s the entire article:

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas-led legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, saying the plaintiffs in the 2018 lawsuit are not being harmed by the law’s unenforceable individual mandate provision — a central argument of the challenge.

The 7-2 ruling did not include an official opinion on whether the ACA, a sweeping piece of health care legislation commonly known as Obamacare, was constitutional.

Instead, the court focused its rejection of the lawsuit — brought by 18 states and two individuals — on its opinion that the plaintiffs didn’t have any standing to sue over the individual mandate, which requires Americans to purchase health insurance and had originally included a financial penalty for those who chose to remain uninsured. That penalty was zeroed out in a later Republican tax bill.

A bit of :haha: that the Republicans, by zeroing out the penalty, removed their standing to sue.

[Indy]

@1695814

A bit of :haha: that the Republicans, by zeroing out the penalty, removed their standing to sue.

[Snake]

Does anyone know who would have standing to challenge the ACA in this manner? The argument that was used seemed salient to me. IIRC, the heart of the matter was that the ACA was implemented under Congress’ power of taxation. Since the tax (i.e. penalty) was reduced to zero, that meant there was no tax and thus Congress didn’t have the authority to create the law.

Does this mean that Congress can now pass any law they want by asserting the tax clause with a $0 fine and nobody would have standing to challenge it?

[EimonGnome]

@Snake

Does this mean that Congress can now pass any law they want by asserting the tax clause with a $0 fine and nobody would have standing to challenge it?

No.

[twig93]

@Snake

Does anyone know who would have standing to challenge the ACA in this manner? The argument that was used seemed salient to me. IIRC, the heart of the matter was that the ACA was implemented under Congress’ power of taxation. Since the tax (i.e. penalty) was reduced to zero, that meant there was no tax and thus Congress didn’t have the authority to create the law.

Does this mean that Congress can now pass any law they want by asserting the tax clause with a $0 fine and nobody would have standing to challenge it?

I was wondering this too, actually. I didn’t want to see Obamacare go away, but I actually thought they had a valid point.

@EimonGnome

No.

Why not? What would stop Congress from doing exactly that? Everyone must wear pink on Tuesdays or we will issue you a $0 tax.

I mean, I guess if you don’t wear pink on Tuesdays nothing happens to you, but still… it seems kind of weird.

[twig93]

BTW, VITA has stopped asking people if they have Obamacare-compliant coverage. That said, it still matters in some states. California has a tax penalty for not having health insurance, for example. I’m not sure about other states, but that one being the biggest state I am more familiar with its rules than I am with average state tax laws.

[NormalDan]

I’m pretty sure I’d get fined if I didn’t have it in NJ. At least based on Turbotax inquiring

[1695814]

@twig93

VITA

What’s that?

[twig93]

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance: a group run by United Way that will prepare returns for low income individuals and senior citizens for free*. I volunteer with them.

*In most cases: there are certain things that are out of scope, such as bankruptcies, casualty losses, ministerial pensions with housing allowances, and probably a few others that I’m forgetting. A lot of places won’t do military returns but VITA preparers can get a VITA certification and do military returns, it’s just a separate certification. Some locations won’t bother since no military folks ever show up as there are other ways for them to get their taxes done for free.

[Snake]

Can you please elaborate?