Federal judge upholds view of Trump administration, rules that Obamacare Is ‘Unconstitutional’
A federal judge sitting in Texas, Friday ruled that the Affordable Care Act, ‘Obamacare’, is unconstitutional – If the decision survives appeal, health insurers will once again be able to refuse coverage for preexisting conditions
Small victories for a beleaguered president Trump: A federal judge in Texas ruled on Friday that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, a decision that was likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court 
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA) gestures during a news conference held by House Democrats condemning the Trump Administration’s targeting of the Affordable Care Act’s pre-existing conditions.
A federal judge in Texas issued a late Friday ruling finding that the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. The order came in a lawsuit filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general, who sued the federal government claiming that because last year Congress eliminated the individual mandate that required Americans to buy health insurance, the entire law should be unconstitutional.
Friday’s ruling means everything in the law such as protections for preexisting conditions coverage, Medicaid expansion, provisions for young people to stay on their parents’ health care plans until age 26, even a requirement for calorie counts on restaurant menus, could be in jeopardy if it is allowed to stand.
The lawsuit, which was supported by the Trump administration, could throw the health insurance markets in to utter chaos, causing millions to lose their insurance.
The Trump administration in June declared Obamacare’s protections for people with preexisting conditions unconstitutional – thanks to the tax bill passed by congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump in December 2017.
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a filing in a federal court in Texas. The outcome of that suit was not expected to cause any immediate changes in health laws. However, victory would represent a major break from repeated promises from Trump and congressional Republicans to preserve the protections for preexisting conditions.
The then AG’s announcement involved some complicated legal reasoning. Republicans slipped a provision into their tax-cut bill that effectively eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance.
Due to Senate rules, the GOP couldn’t technically erase the mandate without triggering a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster, so instead it just reduced the penalty for failing to buy insurance to zero dollars – something that many Republican candidates in this year’s midterm elections promised wouldn’t happen on their watch, even as they backed the lawsuit.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker like many Republicans campaigned on promises that he would protect Americans with preexisting health conditions, even as his administration supported the lawsuit in Texas that would gut those protection
In the run-up to the midterm elections, Republicans such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker campaigned on dubious promises that they would protect Americans with preexisting health conditions—even as they supported the lawsuit in Texas that would gut those protections.
Earlier Friday afternoon, Walker signed a set of bills passed in a lame-duck session since he lost election last month, which included revoking the incoming Democratic state attorney general’s ability to withdraw Wisconsin from the lawsuit.
George W. Bush appointee, Reed Charles O’Connor, a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas since 2007, Friday ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
Federalist Judge Reed O’Connor, who is known for issuing quick decisions in politically charged cases, appeared to sit on a decision in the Obamacare case, leading to speculation that he was waiting until after the midterms to blow up the health care system in an effort to help Republican candidates. He waited just a little over five weeks after the election to issue his controversial ruling, issuing it on Friday night, just as open enrollment for 2019 Obamacare plans was coming to a close.
Demonstrators protesting changes to the Affordable Care Act in June, when the Trump administration rolled out its legal initiative against the health law
Nicholas Bagley✔@nicholas_bagley
The judge credulously accepts the individual plaintiffs’ claims that they would be “freed from arbitrary governance.” But eliminating the mandate penalty did exactly that. It freed them!
Nicholas Bagley✔@nicholas_bagley
I’m gobsmacked. This judge honestly thinks the Constitution requires the elimination of the entire ACA — including its Medicaid expansion, its provisions about calorie counts at chain restaurants, and its new rules on biosimilars — because of an unenforceable “mandate”?
Liberals took to Twitter to condemn the ruling, and its timing.
Adam Cancryn @adamcancryn
Adam Cancryn tweeted that then decision spells a downside for Republicans
The ruling is likely to be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where its fate is uncertain. President Trump has appointed five new judges to that court who are extremely far-right and hostile to the ACA. But even some conservatives seemed to think the order was likely to be overturned on appeal for grossly overreaching. Conservative legal scholar Jonathan Adler agreed with Bagley, suggesting that O’Connor’s ruling was “insane” and that if it made it to the Supreme Court, it would be “lucky to get two votes.”
Leave a Reply