Which states are challenging health care

The coordinator of the petitioners Parties presenting a petition to an appellate court for relief on appeal. A fast resolution is also vitally important to the states that chose not to set up exchanges, to the employers in those states who face either major compliance costs or huge penalties, and to employees who face possible layoffs or reductions in their work hours as a result of this illegal IRS rule.

Our petition today to the Supreme Court represents the next step in that process. The State of Indiana filed a suit against the IRS on October 13, , in an attempt to nullify the tax credits given to those using the federal exchanges to purchase healthcare plans. On January 7, , Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt announced that the state of Oklahoma would file its own lawsuit in federal district court. Pruitt stated that because Oklahoma amended its constitution to prevent citizens from being forced to obtain health insurance, the state had good reasons for filing independently.

In a press release stating his intention to sue, Pruitt commented on his decision to file within the state, saying, "The most logical way to defend our state Constitution is in an Oklahoma federal court not in another state. Sebelius on January 21, District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma that challenged the federal government's implementation of certain parts of the act, especially the tax credit for insurance purchased on the federal exchange.

The complaint alleged that this IRS rule, called the "Final Rule," violated the Administrative Procedures Act and asked the court to declare it invalid. The court held that, under the Affordable Care Act, the tax credits applied to the state exchanges only. Halbig v. Sebelius was filed with the intention of nullifying the tax credits obtained through the federal exchange. The court determined that the law's language granting tax credits to those using exchanges "established by the State" meant that only those using the state exchanges were eligible for tax credits, but not those using the federal exchange.

Judge Thomas Griffith , who wrote the opinion of the court, explained the discrepancy, writing, "On its face, this provision authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. See 42 U. But the Internal Revenue Service has interpreted section 36B broadly to authorize the subsidy also for insurance purchased on an Exchange established by the federal government under section of the Act.

Department of Justice spokeswoman quickly stated that the department would seek an en banc review of the Halbig decision, claiming, "We believe that this decision is incorrect, inconsistent with congressional intent, different from previous rulings, and at odds with the goal of the law: to make health care affordable no matter where people live.

Due in part to the use of the "nuclear option" in the Senate in December , President Obama was able to appoint three judges to the D. While the initial ruling in the court went in favor of Halbig, an en banc review placed the case before the entire D. Seven of those judges were appointed by Democratic presidents while only four were appointed by Republicans.

Supreme Court decision in King v. The Supreme Court granted certiorari Latin for "to be more fully informed. Burwell on November 7, On June 8, , President Barack Obama was asked at a press conference about the impending ruling.

He replied: "This should be an easy case. On June 25, , the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the tax credits for purchasing on the federal exchange. The Court then turned to the issue of whether the IRS interpretation was reasonable. The Court described the Affordable Care Act as "a series of interlocking reforms" and noted that its other reforms would enter "a death spiral" without the tax credits. Thus granting tax credits to those purchasing on the federal exchange was not only reasonable but "necessary" in order to accomplish Congress' goals in passing the Affordable Care Act.

A federal lawsuit was filed in Florida , with 26 states, two individuals, and an independent organization named as plaintiffs. This lawsuit challenged the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the individual health insurance mandate exceeded Congress ' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of Article I and did not fall within its power to tax.

The complaint further alleged that the Act violated the Tenth Amendment by compelling states to follow federal regulations. A federal district court held on January 31, , that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act exceeded Congress' authority. The court also held that the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the Affordable Care Act, thus striking the entire Act.

The federal government appealed the ruling, which then went to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The circuit court found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, but denied that the individual mandate provision could not be severed from the law, thus preserving the rest of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court decided the case on June 28, In a decision, the court upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I power to lay and collect taxes.

Chief Justice John Roberts , delivering the opinion of the court, wrote, "The court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity.

But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes. The court also considered whether the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid was a constitutional exercise of federal power. The court concluded that, by cutting off all Medicaid funding to states that refused to expand the program, the federal government was engaging in coercion. The court stated that the law transformed the original Medicaid program into "an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissented. The dissenting opinion argued that the individual mandate was not a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, because it compelled people to engage in particular transactions rather than regulating existing transactions: "the mere fact that we all consume food and are thus, sooner or later, participants in the 'market' for food, does not empower the Government to say when and what we will buy.

That is essentially what this Act seeks to do with respect to the purchase of health care. The opinion concluded that the Affordable Care act should be overturned in its entirety, as it could not function as intended without the individual mandate.

The Affordable Care Act mandated that insurance plans must cover certain essential benefits—which HHS later interpreted to include contraceptive coverage.

Employers that didn't provide this benefit in their health insurance plan would face hefty fines. Several organizations argued that being required to cover birth control violated religious freedoms. Hobby Lobby, a company owned by an evangelical Christian family, sought exemptions from coverage of four different contraceptives--two emergency morning after pills and two intrauterine devices IUDs --on the basis that those contraceptives were forms of abortion according to their religious beliefs.

The company did not argue against providing most common forms of birth control. Conestoga Wood Specialties was a company owned by a Mennonite family, who objected to contraceptives that could potentially cause an abortion. In July of , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Conestoga Wood Specialties on the grounds that for-profit corporations cannot engage in religious exercise. In November of , the U. Supreme Court granted certiorari Latin for "to be more fully informed.

Both companies' appeals were heard together during a one-hour oral argument. Officials from the coalition are asking the court to block the Biden administration from imposing the vaccine rule on health care workers. The vaccine measures announced by Mr. Biden in September have been a target of Republican-led states —namely a rule requiring employees at large companies must be vaccinated — that argue the administration is overreaching and agencies exceeding their authority.

Under the broader requirement from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, workers at companies with more than employees must be vaccinated by January 4 or comply with face mask requirements and weekly testing.

Eleven states on Friday filed suit against the Biden administration over its vaccine requirement for workers. Then, on Saturday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans temporarily halted the requirement in response to a separate challenge to the rule brought by private businesses and five other states. In its decision , a three-judge panel from the 5th U. Texas at the Supreme Court. Two individuals joined the lawsuit in the trial court in April , as plaintiffs challenging the ACA.

The federal government took the position that these provisions cannot function effectively without the individual mandate but the rest of the ACA should be allowed to survive. Notably, the federal government changed its position while the case was on appeal at the 5 th Circuit Figure 2. Next, the federal government raised new arguments about the scope of relief that the court should grant, asserting that the federal government should be enjoined from enforcing only the ACA provisions that injure the plaintiffs.

The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit it from enforcing only the ACA provisions that are found to harm the individual plaintiffs. Even though the federal government is arguing that the entire ACA should be found invalid because the individual mandate is no longer constitutional and cannot be severed from the rest of the law , the federal government does not want the Court to necessarily prevent it from still enforcing parts of the law.

Figure 2: Key dates in California v. Subsequently, the 5 th Circuit allowed four more states to intervene in the case on appeal, bringing the total number of states defending the ACA in the case to The 5 th Circuit also allowed the U.

House of Representatives to intervene in the case to defend the ACA on appeal. Figure 3: Alignment of the Parties in California v. The 5 th Circuit issued a decision finding the individual mandate unconstitutional and sending the case back to the trial court for additional analysis about whether the rest of the ACA can survive. Figure 4 illustrates the legal questions and potential outcomes in the case.

The 5 th Circuit decided that the both the individual and state plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ACA in court. Standing ensures that federal courts are deciding actual cases or controversies as required by the U. Standing is essential for the court to have jurisdiction to decide a case and therefore cannot be waived. To establish standing, a party must suffer an injury that is concrete and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and likely to be redressed by a favorable court ruling.