Federal Judge Strikes Down ACA; WILL BE STAYED AND APPEALED

[Autodidact]

Spoiler

Because there's no injunction (not yet, anyhow) the Trump administration would not be in contempt if it continued to implement the ACA. Nor, I think, does it need to secure a stay pending appeal -- though I could be wrong about that. Which means that EVERYONE SHOULD STAY CALM.

BACKGROUND:
This case arose directly from Congress's repealing the mandate. These AGs now argue that the rest of the law was "inseverable" from the mandate, and since it's gone the rest of the law has to go, too.

It's a stupid argument because most of the rest of the law can still function without the mandate, especially the pre-existing conditions part, and higher courts will likely rule as much.

The decision will be stayed and appealed quickly.

This judge very likely sat on this decision for weeks so as not to hurt the GOP in the midterms.

 

[Dyle]

Which case is this? I can't keep all of the cases against the ACA straight

 

[Killthee]

Merry Christmas y'all.

 

[Autodidact]

Which case is this? I can't keep all of the cases against the ACA straight

Click to shrink...

The one that all those GOP AGs joined.

 

[Gluka]

What's the longterm consequence of this? Is there actually a path for them to repeal the ACA through the Supreme Court now?

 

[Replicant]

Um..the Supreme Court already ruled on the ACA and the indivdual mandate and declared it legal.

 

[skullmuffins]

Which case is this? I can't keep all of the cases against the ACA straight

Click to shrink...

this is the big lawsuit in texas that was joined by a bunch of republican AGs.

here's some light reading on why the argument that this (partisan hack) judge just approved is nonsense:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/8/17441512/obamacare-lawsuit-texas-trump

 

[Autodidact]

What's the longterm consequence of this? Is there actually a path for them to repeal the ACA through the Supreme Court now?

Click to shrink...

Technically yes, but Roberts upheld the ACA in 2012. Kennedy voted against it.

Again, the mandate was repealed in the Tax Act and would've expired in a few weeks anyway, but it's likely Roberts would again uphold the rest of the law.

 

[Autodidact]

Um..the Supreme Court already ruled on the ACA and the indivdual mandate and declared it legal.

Click to shrink...

This case arose directly from Congress's repealing the mandate. These AGs now argue that the rest of the law was "inseverable" from the mandate, and since it's gone the rest of the law has to go, too.

It's a stupid argument because most of the rest of the law can still function without the mandate, especially the pre-existing conditions part, and higher courts will likely rule as much.

 

[skullmuffins]

and here's the ruling: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5629711-Texas-v-US-Partial-Summary-Judgment.html

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Wait, didn't the Supreme Court already rule that the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional? How did they overturn the Supreme Court decision?

 

[Autodidact]

Wait, didn't the Supreme Court already rule that the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional? How did they overturn the Supreme Court decision?

Click to shrink...

See OP.

 

[Wilsongt]

Okay. Freak out over.

These chucklefucks are terrible

 

[BLEEN]

lmao I knew as soon as midterms were over, they'd get right back on this. And yep.

So many people I know need the ACA. There's still people that don't know that ObamaCare is the same thing.
Somehow, tho, the ACA has been standing the test of time and a GOP controlled everything and I am extremely thankful for that. It's kind of incredible.

Good luck, fucks!

 

[skullmuffins]

Wait, didn't the Supreme Court already rule that the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional? How did they overturn the Supreme Court decision?

Click to shrink...

this is some dumb argument that 1) now that the mandate has no penalty it cannot be considered a tax, 2) therefore the mandate is unconstitutional, 3) you can't separate the mandate from the rest of the ACA, therefore THE ENTIRE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

[Quad Lasers]

So is this just a symbolic taint cuddle for the GOP?

 

[Autodidact]

So is this just a symbolic taint cuddle for the GOP?

Click to shrink...

Basically. The argument is stupid on its face, and Roberts + the liberals will likely rule against it if it even makes it to SCOTUS. (A lower appeals court may invalidate the ruling, and SCOTUS could just refuse the case and let that ruling stand.)

And as the OP says, the judge hasn't issued an injunction (yet), meaning the ACA can continue to be administered. And once an appeal is lodged, a higher court will very likely stay this judge's order and prevent the ACA from ever going offline.

It's GOP political theater and red meat.

 

[viskod]

Well, time to start bookmarking any debate clips where Hillary Clinton tried to warn everyone that this would happen also.

 

[Teiresias]

Roberts will manhandle whoever he has to in order to not even have this case heard if this ruling is invalidated later and that's the state the ruling is in when it inevitably makes it to the SCOTUS's door.

We were closer to the ACA going completely way last year in the Senate.

 

[Autodidact]

Roberts will manhandle whoever he has to in order to not even have this case heard if this ruling is invalidated later and that's the state the ruling is in when it inevitably makes it to the SCOTUS's door.

Click to shrink...

Not an unlikely prediction

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

See OP.

Click to shrink...

this is some dumb argument that 1) now that the mandate has no penalty it cannot be considered a tax, 2) therefore the mandate is unconstitutional, 3) you can't separate the mandate from the rest of the ACA, therefore THE ENTIRE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Click to shrink...

Ah, I see. They keep trying to sneak it away on a garbage "potential" technicality. They try so hard, them dilholes.

 

[Sheepinator]

GOP will need to see their doctor on account of their erections lasting for hours, at the prospect of millions losing healthcare, going bankrupt, and being screwed over by lack of protection for pre-existing conditions. They even flat out lied during the midterms to say their proposals would protect people with pre-existing conditions.

 

[KtotheRoc]

This was exactly how I expected this case to go, and this is still absolutely maddening. (I know it will be stayed and appealed.)

 

[JustinP]

The individual mandate would've expired on January 1 anyway.

Click to shrink...

But that's precisely why the judge ruled this way. Republicans couldn't pass a bill to remove the mandate so they made the mandate zero dollars through budget bill, so they then argue it's no longer a tax, which is how the mandate was held up before.

 

[Autodidact]

But that's precisely why the judge ruled this way. Republicans couldn't pass a bill to remove the mandate so they made the mandate zero dollars through budget bill, so they then argue it's no longer a tax, which is how the mandate was held up before.

Click to shrink...

Hence my explaining as much in the OP. :)

 

[Hogendaz85]

Can someone explain to me what this means? Is the ACA toast?

 

[Autodidact]

Can someone explain to me what this means? Is the ACA toast?

Click to shrink...

There's information in the OP and numerous clarifying posts on this page.

But in short: probably not.

 

[KtotheRoc]

Can someone explain to me what this means? Is the ACA toast?

Click to shrink...

Not yet. It means the decision is going to a higher court. (It could potentially go to the Supreme Court after that, but there are several people who think they don't want to deal with this case.)

 

[Hogendaz85]

Thanks. I get confused with the lingo they use sometimes. Probably also because I'm super tired after a terribly long work week, ya frifray!

 

[Ensorcell]

Despicable. I mean if you're a judge how do you even attempt something like that knowing how many people it would screw over? Man, people can justify anything in their own mind.

 

[GaimeGuy]

On August 21, 2016, O'Connor made a ruling against the Obama administration dealing with the government's interpretation of Title IX rules. The guidance from the White House was issued in May 2016, and addresses the Title IX requirement that schools receiving federal funding not discriminate against students on the basis of sex. O'Connor ruled that the new guidelines did not receive proper notice and comment prior to publication, and that Title IX and its implementing regulation are "not ambiguous" as to the "plain meaning of the term sex as used". As such, he issued a nationwide injunction preventing them from being enforced with respect to students' access to "intimate facilities."[2]​

On December 31, 2016, in a separate case, O'Connor blocked the Obama administration's regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded health programs) for a "likely" violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and what he said was an improper inclusion of gender identity discrimination.[3]​

On October 5, 2018, O'Connor overturned 250 years of Indian sovereignty law and ruled that the Indian Child Welfare Act was unconstitutional. The ICWA was a 40-year-old landmark piece of legislation protecting tribal children from exploitation, designed to keep Native families together, and inspired by an attempt to reverse decades of state courts stripping Native children away from Native families. O'Connor's ruling ignored decades of direct federal government-to-government relationship and precedent that have upheld tribal sovereignty and the rights of Indian children and families.​

Click to shrink...

Typical Republican activist judge.

Also, his ruling will definitely be overturned. It's perfectly within Congress's authority to set a tax to 0.

 

[Astronut325]

Wow... Was not expecting this. The judge must have withheld this ruling till after the midterms.

Pure evil. Sometimes... evil wins. Elections have consequences.

 

[Autodidact]

Pure evil. Sometimes... evil wins. Elections have consequences.

Click to shrink...

Democrats just won an election.

This judge has been on the bench for over ten years - a W appointee, not a Trump one.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Furthermore, the SC's ruling wasn't that the bill is constitutional because there's a non-zero penalty, but that the use of a penalty constitutes a tax on economic activity, as authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause. Setting that penalty to 0 doesn't change anything

 

[asmith906]

Basically. The argument is stupid on its face, and Roberts + the liberals will likely rule against it if it even makes it to SCOTUS. (A lower appeals court may invalidate the ruling, and SCOTUS could just refuse the case and let that ruling stand.)

And as the OP says, the judge hasn't issued an injunction (yet), meaning the ACA can continue to be administered. And once an appeal is lodged, a higher court will very likely stay this judge's order and prevent the ACA from ever going offline.

It's GOP political theater and red meat.

Click to shrink...

So what happens to my insurance is the judge issues an injunction against the law. Without the subsidy I straight up can't afford my insurance.

Man, GOP are full scum.


Also There are plenty of republicans like Tomi Lauren who take advantage of being on their parents insurance yet champion killing the ACA. Do they not realize it'll hurt them also?

 

[Surfinn]

This is kinda confusing to me. What happens now?

 

[Pooh]

Luckily Republicans haven't spent the last two years ramming through as many absurdly conservative justices as possible, some of whom make this guy look like a centrist! Then we'd really be looking at decades of judicial bullshit like this!

 

[Autodidact]

So what happens to my insurance is the judge issues an injunction against the law. Without the subsidy I straight up can't afford my insurance.

Click to shrink...

The ACA will likely not be enjoined; in fact, it can't be once a higher court issues a stay on this judge's order.

I won't tell you not to worry because the thought of losing insurance is deeply frightening, but as of this moment it looks as though you should be okay.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The ACA will likely not be enjoined; in fact, it can't be once a higher court issues a stay on this judge's order.

I won't tell you not to worry because the thought of losing insurance is deeply frightening, but as of this moment it looks as though you should be okay.

Click to shrink...

This judge didn't even issue an injunction because he knows his ruling is bullshit

 

[Br3wnor]

This is kinda confusing to me. What happens now?

Click to shrink...

It gets appealed, we wait to see higher court opinions while ACA keeps functioning like it is. The law is safe unless it goes all the way to SCOTUS who would need to rule against it. If the court above this Texas dickhead reverses him then SCOTUS can just refuse to hear the case and it's safe. If it goes to SCOTUS then it would be hopeful that Roberts would side with liberals like he did last time, Kennedy voted against it in 2012 so Kavanugh voting same as him doesn't necessarily guarantee anything if Roberts does what he did in 2012. Do not panic yet

 

[Surfinn]

It gets appealed, we wait to see higher court opinions while ACA keeps functioning like it is. The law is safe unless it goes all the way to SCOTUS who would need to rule against it. If the court above this Texas dickhead reverses him then SCOTUS can just refuse to hear the case and it's safe. If it goes to SCOTUS then it would be hopeful that Roberts would side with liberals like he did last time, Kennedy voted against it in 2012 so Kavanugh voting same as him doesn't necessarily guarantee anything if Roberts does what he did in 2012. Do not panic yet

Click to shrink...

Thank you for the explanation. So it sounds like it's pretty safe, or at least has a good shot at being safe

 

[Br3wnor]

Thank you for the explanation. So it sounds like it's pretty safe, or at least has a good shot at being safe

Click to shrink...

I mean crazier shit has happened and I haven't fully researched the lawsuit but my general understanding is that it's on very shaky legal ground and the fact that this judge didn't put an injunction to put ACA on hold kinda points to that. He held the decision for months just to avoid impacting the mid terms, he's a republican ideologue.

I tend to think it's safe but we shall see. Fingers fucking crossed

 

[Syril]

I just can't fucking believe how badly and how persistently these Republican shitbags want me to not be able to afford healthcare.

 

[Surfinn]

I mean crazier shit has happened and I haven't fully researched the lawsuit but my general understanding is that it's on very shaky legal ground and the fact that this judge didn't put an injunction to put ACA on hold kinda points to that. He held the decision for months just to avoid impacting the mid terms, he's a republican ideologue.

I tend to think it's safe but we shall see. Fingers fucking crossed

Click to shrink...

Imagine being dedicated to a cause that helps people instead of killing them

 

[Slayven]

Imagine being dedicated to a cause that helps people instead of killing them

Click to shrink...

For real, Paul Ryan gave up after he found out he couldn't toss poor people out in the street without a fight

 

[GaimeGuy]

"If we make the individual mandate unenforceable because there's no penalty, then that makes the individual mandate unconstitutional, and that makes everything about the ACA, from the medicaid expansion to the insurance exchanges to the CSRs to the standards of care and insurance classifications unconstitutional" might be the most bullshit argument to come from the government this year, and that's with Trump being around.

 

[Surfinn]

For real, Paul Ryan gave up after he found out he couldn't toss poor people out in the street without a fight

Click to shrink...

I don't understand why they're so dedicated to this. You have money, you have power. Why the fuck are you treating losing a few dollars like Order 66?

 

[samoyed]

They can solve their demographic and gerrymandering problems by just killing Dem voters.

 

[JustinP]

I don't understand why they're so dedicated to this. You have money, you have power. Why the fuck are you treating losing a few dollars like Order 66?

Click to shrink...

 

[Pelagic II]

I think some people in here are downplaying the real threat this ruling and lawsuit is to the ACA.

In 2012 John Roberts (and a majority of the court) ruled Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce clause. However, he did not trash the whole law because he ruled it was legal as a tax.

Now the tax is gone, and with it the justification for why ACA/Obamacare is constitutional.

Of course, striking down Obamacare would be a highly controversial move and perhaps Roberts would be reluctant to do so. He could fear for the courts legitimacy. But unless he changes his mind there likely are 5 votes on the Supreme Court right now to declare the ACA is unconstitutional.