The ACA, aka Obamacare, has survived the latest challenge at SCOTUS:
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday in a decision that will leave the law intact and save health care coverage for millions of Americans. The justices turned away a challenge from Republican-led states and the former Trump administration, which urged the justices to block the entire law.[CNN/Politics]
I thought this was interesting …
The justices said that the challengers of the 2010 law did not have the legal right to bring the case. …
The justices noted that there is no harm to opponents from the provisions that they are challenging because Congress has reduced the penalty for failing to buy health insurance to zero.
… because later CNN’s expert commented:
“Today’s ruling is, indeed, another reprieve for the Affordable Care Act — one that rests on the extent to which the provisions its critics say are objectionable are no longer enforceable against them,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law.
The ruling means that the justices won’t rule on the merits of the lawsuit, but allows the law to stand.
“By holding that these individual plaintiffs and states lacked ‘standing’ to sue, the justices avoided deciding whether the ACA as revised is constitutional — but also made it much harder for anyone to get that issue into the courts going forward,” Vladeck said. “In essence, they sucked the oxygen out of the ACA’s continuing constitutional fire.”
So if Congress reinstates the penalty, doesn’t that give the complainants standing?
A 7-2 victory does tend to put the stamp of approval on the ACA, even if Justice Alito is feeling bitter:
In his dissent, Alito called out the various times the Supreme Court has now ruled on the law and found ways to keep it in place.
“Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue,” Alito wrote.
“No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats. A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge,” the veteran conservative justice added.
“So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation’s history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again, he added. “But I must respectfully dissent.”
And I remain interested in the apparent fact that Adam Smith, the father of the free market, remains uncited by the opposition. I must find time to read his The Wealth of Nations someday.
