Source – theepochtimes.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\u00a0Trump administration\u00a0and a coalition of Republican-led states have asked the\u00a0Supreme Court\u00a0to deny a request to expedite a review of\u00a0a lawsuit challenging former President Barack Obama\u2019s Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administration and state officials urged the court to deny the motions filed by the House and Democrat-led state in separate filings on Friday. The motions, filed last week, asked the top court to urgently consider taking up appeals of a lower court ruling that found a key aspect of Obamacare, the \u201cindividual mandate\u201d provision, unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Along with ruling the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the appeals court sent the case back to the district court to decide on whether that provision was severable from the rest of the law. If the court finds the provision is inseverable from the law, it could effectively invalidate the whole ACA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the filing, the administration and state officials argued that the Supreme Court did not have to urgently consider the case because the district court needed to make a decision on the issue of severability before the top court can take up the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs the case comes to this court, no lower-court ruling exists on severability or the appropriate remedy. Far from being urgently needed, this court\u2019s review thus would be premature,\u201d\u00a0Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in the filing for the Trump administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAbsent any operative ruling invalidating the ACA\u2019s other provisions in the interim, the accelerated review petitioners seek is unnecessary,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said instead of intervening, the court should let the lower courts complete their own consideration of the question of severability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their motions, House and Democratic state officials\u2019 also requested the court to fast track the case and issue a ruling before its current term ends in June.\u00a0They argued that the court\u2019s expeditious consideration is necessary because of the\u00a0uncertainty the lower court\u2019s decision has on health insurance and the health care marketplace, as well as for millions of Americans who have purchased health insurance under Obamacare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addressing that request, Francisco said the appellants had not provided a compelling justification for an accelerated timeline to consider the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In December, judges at the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans\u00a0ruled 2\u20131 that a key aspect of Obamacare was unconstitutional. The judges in the majority said the \u201cindividual mandate,\u201d which required people to obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty, was invalid after Congress removed the tax penalty in 2017, rendering the law unenforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following Congress\u2019s amendment,\u00a0a group of Republican-led states and two private individuals filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that the provision was no longer constitutional and that the whole\u00a0ACA needed to be invalidated because the provision was inseverable from the rest of the law. During the district court trial, the Justice Department told the court that they agreed with the Republican states that the provision was unconstitutional and declined to defend the ACA. The district court found in favor for the Republican-led states, prompting an appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the majority opinion\u00a0of the appeals case,\u00a0Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, appointed by former President George W. Bush, said the individual mandate was unconstitutional because \u201cit can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the issue of severability, Elrod directed the district court to \u201cemploy a finer toothed comb\u201d to conduct a more detailed analysis of which provisions of the ACA Congress had intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The House and Democrat-led states, who requested to\u00a0intervene in the initial lawsuit and appeal\u00a0to defend the ACA, then separately appealed the Fifth Circuit\u2019s ruling to\u00a0the Supreme Court, saying in one of the petitions to the top court that the lower court\u2019s ruling has \u201ccast doubt on the validity of the entire ACA, arguably the most consequential package of legislative reforms of this century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Friday, the other respondents in the case\u2014the state officials and two individuals,\u00a0Neill Hurley and John Nantz\u2014also made similar arguments in their filings urging the court to deny the motions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThere may come a day when this court\u2019s review is appropriate, but it is after the issue of severability is decided,\u201d the state officials argued.<\/p>\n