Texas vs. Azar

 

Long-time readers may remember that back in June 2018, the Trump Administration's Justice Dept. threw all precedence, decency and logic out the window by not only refusing to defend against the idiotic "Texas vs. Azar" lawsuit (aka #TexasFoldEm) brought by 20 Republican state Attorneys General...but went even further by actually agreeing with the plaintiffs that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act--which is, remember, the federal law of the land which the DoJ is supposed to defend--is unconstitutional.

At the time, there was one strange thing which was buried within the ugly implications of such a complete abdictation of duty by then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions: While the Trump DoJ did side with the plaintiffs on the case, they split from the plaintiffs as to what they thought the actual "solution" to the "problem" should be.

via University of Michigan Law Professor and all-around mensch Nicholas Bagley (this is all via Twitter...I've reformatted to clean it up a bit):

The Justice Department has filed its supplemental brief with the Fifth Circuit. In it, the Department clarifies that a case or controversy still exists because, "critically," the government "continues to enforce the ACA."

The Justice Department nonetheless thinks that neither the House of Representatives nor the blue states have standing. And if the Fifth Circuit dismisses the appeal, the Department says that O'Connor's opinion should *not* be vacated.

Significantly, the Justice Department now says that it will continue to enforce the ACA "pending a final judicial determination of the constitutionality of the individual mandate as well as the severability of the ACA's other provisions."

Huh. This is an interesting development...

Republican attorneys general suing to strike down the Affordable Care Act asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to delay oral arguments in the case, which are set to take place on July 9.

The Republican states said they need more time to file a supplemental brief on whether the U.S. House of Representatives and the Democratic states that are defending the landmark healthcare law have standing to intervene in the case and if not, what that means for the appeal. The Republican attorneys general asked to extend the July 3 deadline to file the brief by 20 days and reschedule oral arguments for after that date.

...The Democratic states and the House urged the court to deny the request, arguing that moving ahead with the case would reduce uncertainty in the healthcare sector.

...except that the court has already responded with a big, fat bucket of Nope:

Jibbers Crabst on a stick. Any time University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley begins his Twitter threads with a screenshot of legalese, it's bad news.

First, here's his full thread:

The panel in the Fifth Circuit that's about to hear Texas v. United States has just asked for further briefing on standing -- and in particular on whether the intervenor states and the House of Representatives can properly appeal the case.

— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) June 26, 2019

I'm neither an attorney nor a Constitutional expert, so this may not have any legal significance beyond confirming what everyone already knew about the Trump Administration. Then again, perhaps it will.

Just a little over two weeks from now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will be hearing oral arguments in the Texas vs. Azar case, otherwise known as #TexasFoldEm. As a reminder:

If the entire ACA were to be repealed:

  • 16 million people would lose Medicaid
  • 9 million people would lose subsidized private ACA exchange coverage
  • 850,000 would lose BHP coverage in Minnesota & New York
  • Medicare Part D donut hole? Reopened.
  • Children being allowed to stay on their parents plans until age 26? Gone.
  • Discrimination against those with preexisting conditions? Back.
  • Annual & lifetime limits on coverage? Back.
  • Caps on out of pocket expenses? Gone.

...and much, much more.