Obamacare's Win at the Supreme Court Is Even Bigger Than it Appears
The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to throw out the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act is like a Magic Eye. Upon first glance, it’s barely anything: The 7–2 majority tossed the case on standing, holding that none of the plaintiffs are actually harmed by the ACA’s now zeroed out individual mandate. Sometimes, when the court finds no standing, the plaintiffs can retreat, develop a new theory of harm, and return with a beefed up lawsuit. But look closer at the decision in California v. Texas and you will see a wholesale rejection of the plaintiffs’ entire theory of the case. Other attacks on Obamacare will continue, but this uniquely daffy assault on the law is dead.
California v. Texas arose after Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Just months earlier, Republicans had narrowly failed to repeal the whole ACA. So, in their tax cut bill, they settled on the next best thing: zeroing out the penalty for people who don’t purchase health insurance. Because Congress passed the law through reconciliation, it could not actually eliminate the ACA’s individual mandate itself, which remains on the books. But lawmakers rendered it unenforceable by establishing a zero dollar penalty for anyone who violates it.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, along with 17 other states and two hand-picked individual plaintiffs, then filed a lawsuit seeking to topple the entire ACA. The plaintiffs pointed out that, when the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2012, it found that the individual mandate could be justified as a tax. But now, the plaintiffs argued, the mandate collects zero dollars, so it is no longer a tax, just a command. And in 2012, the court held that a command to purchase health insurance (rather than a tax on uninsured people) would exceed Congress’ constitutional authority. So, under this theory, the mandate must be stricken—and the rest of the law must fall with it, because the mandate should be deemed “inseverable” from the entire ACA.
There are many logical flaws in this theory. For instance, if the mandate is just an unenforceable command that anyone can ignore with impunity, how can it be unconstitutional? Can Congress exceed its powers when it’s not actually exercising any powers? And even if the mandate is unconstitutional, why must the rest of the law fall? By zeroing out the penalty in 2017, didn’t Congress decide the law could function without the mandate? Shouldn’t the courts defer to that judgment?
In the end, however, the Supreme Court seized upon the most glaring problem of all: The plaintiffs—both states and individuals—simply have no standing to challenge Obamacare because they are not injured by it. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority, the mandate “has no means of enforcement,” because “the IRS can no longer seek a penalty from those who fail to comply.” Moreover, “there is no one, and nothing, to enjoin”: a decision on the merits would amount to “an advisory opinion” that “would threaten to grant unelected judges a general authority to conduct oversight of decisions of the elected branches of Government.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obamacares-win-at-the-supreme-court-is-even-bigger-than-it-appears/ar-AAL9oMY
= new reply since forum marked as read
Moreover, “there is no one, and nothing, to enjoin”: a decision on the merits would amount to “an advisory opinion” that “would threaten to grant unelected judges a general authority to conduct oversight of decisions of the elected branches of Government.”
Thank you Justice Breyer
In the end, however, the Supreme Court seized upon the most glaring problem of all:
The plaintiffs—both states and individuals—simply have no standing to challenge Obamacare because they are not injured by it.
Pres Obama & Pres Biden!
