In Reversal, DOJ Now Says Whole ACA Unconstitutional
The Justice Department had previously said it agreed changes to the ACA's individual mandate were unconstitutional but severable from the whole law.
March 25, 2019 at 10:14 PM
3 minute read
- Protesters rally on March 23, 2016, in support of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)
The Justice Department now believes the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, a reversal from its position this past summer when the government said changes to the individual mandate were unconstitutional but severable from the whole law.
A Justice Department filing Monday night said the government believes a district court judge's ruling that the entire Obama-era health care law is unconstitutional should be affirmed. Main Justice has a long tradition of defending the constitutionality of federal laws, and, while there are exceptions, it's rare for the department to refuse to defend federal statutes.
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas ruled in December that a congressional tax law passed in 2017—which zeroed out the penalty imposed by the ACA's individual mandate—rendered the entire health care law unconstitutional.
The law, however, remains in effect while the ruling is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Justice Department's change in course comes nearly two months after now-Attorney General Bill Barr told senators during his confirmation that he was open to reconsidering the government's stance in the case.
A coalition of states, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, have defended the law after the Justice Department made the controversial decision to drop its defense. The U.S. House of Representatives also stepped in to defend the law and hired former U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who defended the ACA at the U.S. Supreme Court nearly six years ago.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and several other states are leading that challenge.
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, called the Justice Department's change in position “alarming.”
“The underlying legal argument is really bad. So the Justice Department is embracing a weak legal argument,” Adler said. “Sometimes the government has obligations, or is in a position to defend something where the legal arguments are not strong, but it still has to defend the government. And here [DOJ] is neither defending the government nor embracing a strong legal argument. And that's kind of noticeable.”
Read the Justice Department's letter below:
||
Read more:
'Embarrassingly Bad,' 'Unmoored': Legal Scholars Bash Texas Judge's ACA Takedown
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllManufacturing Group Urges Sweeping Environmental Deregulation in Letter to Trump
'Close Our Borders?' Senate Judiciary Committee Examines Economics, Legal Predicate for Mass Deportation Proposal
3 minute readFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York County Lawyers' Group Pledges Encore Summit to Maintain Due Process in Deportation Proceedings
- 2Wilmer's Bharara to Lead Probe Into Alleged State Police Traffic Enforcement 'Slowdown'
- 3Meet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
- 4'All About Case Selection': Small But Mighty Miami Firm Reflects on Decades of Success
- 5Visa CLO-Turned-Vice Chair Seeing Payoff From Expanded Role
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250