Obamacare: Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Affordable Care Act, Leaving İt İn Place - Cnnpolitics

Obamacare: Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To Affordable Care Act, Leaving İt İn Place - Cnnpolitics

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Affordable Care Act, leaving it in place

CNN News, delivered. Select from our newsletters below and enter your email to subscribe.

6/20/2021 4:31:00 PM

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. CNN's JohnAvlon looks at the many hurdles the ACA has faced.

CNN News, delivered. Select from our newsletters below and enter your email to subscribe.

The justices said that the challengers of the 2010 law did not have the legal right to bring the case.READ: Supreme Court ruling on Affordable Care ActJustice Stephen Breyer penned the decision that was 7-2. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.RELATED: Nothing Justice Stephen Breyer has said publicly suggests he's ready to quit"With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it's here to stay," President Joe Biden tweeted Thursday, a reference to him being caught on a hot mic telling President Barack Obama in 2010 the law is a "big f--king deal."Read MoreThe 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."For these reasons, we conclude that the plaintiffs in this suit failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional," Breyer wrote."They have failed to show that they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the Act's minimum essential coverage provision."The Department of Health and Human Services released a report earlier this month that shows a record 31 million Americans have health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, including 11.3 million people enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges as of February and 14.8 million newly-eligible, low-income people enrolled in Medicaid expansion as of December.Here's what the Supreme Court's Affordable Care Act ruling means for you In addition, another 1.2 million Americans have selected policies for 2021 during a special enrollment period that Biden launched in mid-February to expand coverage to the uninsured. It runs until mid-August.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who led the legal challenge against the law and has spearheaded Republican efforts to undo Obama-era policies through the courts, vowed to continue fighting the law in a Twitter post on Thursday."If the government is allowed to mislead its citizens, pass a massive government takeover of healthcare, and yet still survive after Supreme Court review, this spells doom for the principles of Federalism and limited government," Paxton tweeted.Ruling on standing"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."Obama said the high court's ruling reaffirms that the law"is here to stay.""The principle of universal coverage has been established, and 31 million people now have access to care through the law we passed -- with millions more who can no longer be denied coverage or charged more because of a preexisting condition," the former president said in a statement Thursday. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who helped shape the law as a White House adviser under Obama, echoed the 44th President on Thursday the high court made it clear that the ACA is the law of the land. "It's going to stay the law of the land. We're not repealing it and now we should get on to doing additional things to help improve the health care system," Emanuel told CNN's Poppy Harlow on"Newsroom.""I think the issue is, let's stop with the debate of can we get people covered through the Affordable Care Act? Will the exchanges stay? Will the Medicaid expansion stay? And let's talk about the real issues of improving the health of the population...," he added."They made clear, stop annoying us. This is a recurring fly. We're not going to deal with it."'An improbable rescue' 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."Third challengeThe case marked the third time the court heard a significant challenge to the law, although the stakes were heightened given the implications of Covid-19, the catastrophic deaths and the current burdens facing the health care industry. Texas and other Republican-led states, with the support of the Trump administration, challenged the law which was defended by California and other Democratic-led states plus the House of Representatives.In 2012, Roberts cast the key vote in a 5-4 decision that stunned Republicans, holding that the law's individual coverage mandate was valid under Congress' taxing power. By 2017, the Republican-led Congress cut the tax penalty for those who lacked insurance to zero as part of the year-end tax overhaul.Supreme Court rules in favor of Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples The Republican-led states, supported by the Trump administration, sued, arguing that since the mandate was no longer tied to a specific tax penalty, it had lost its legal underpinning. They also argued that because the individual mandate was intertwined with a multitude of other provisions, the entire law should fall, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. In December 2019, a federal appeals court held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. But critically, the court punted on whether the rest of the massive law -- even provisions unrelated to the mandate -- could remain on the books. In court, Texas Solicitor General Kyle D. Hawkins said the 2017 change made the individual mandate unconstitutional."It is a naked command to purchase health insurance, and, as such, it falls outside Congress' enumerated powers," he said."The proper course is to take Congress at its word and declare the mandate unconstitutional and inseverable from the remainder of the ACA," he said.Nothing Justice Stephen Breyer has said publicly suggests he's ready to quit Then-acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall sided with Texas on the issue, arguing that the mandate"exceeded" Congress' powers.During his term, former President Donald Trump repeatedly said he would come up with an alternative but never issued any substantive details.Supporters of the Affordable Care Act thought the court should uphold the entire law but conceded the justices could strike down the mandate but allow the rest of the law to stand. "Congress made a single surgical change," California Solicitor General Michael Mongan told the justices. He stressed that the rest of the law should remain in effect if the mandate is struck"because that's the very framework Congress itself already created."More on Affordable Care Act

Suni Lee and an epochal moment for Hmongs in America Garland urges Abbott to undo executive order aimed at curbing migration Florida virus cases soar, hospitals near last summer's peak Read more: CNN »

Relocating a Commercial Spacecraft at the Space Station on This Week @NASA – July 23, 2021

Relocating a commercial spacecraft at the space station, while another one gets ready to launch to the station, and Perseverance prepares for a mission miles...

JohnAvlon Love John Avlon. Always brings it home...

Opinion | One Cheer for the Supreme Court on Religious LibertyFrom WSJopinion: A narrow ruling helps Catholic foster parents, but the faithful deserve more protection under the First Amendment opinion What would Jesus do? Surely sue for his right to turn away people in need. opinion 'He wants to win over liberal Justices...' Wow WSJ editorial board has been reading the Chief Justices' private thoughts, how do you do that? opinion The ruling may be appropriate given the case at hand, but the hundreds of pedophiles in the church make it a laughable cause.

‘I am so relieved’ — People with Obamacare health insurance react to Supreme Court decisionThe Supreme Court decision didn’t delve into the real-life consequences of the ACA law falling, but this W. Va. resident knew exactly what it could have meant for her: the potential disappearance of a health insurance plan she likes and can pay for.

Iowa Supreme Court bars warrantless police searches of trashA divided Iowa Supreme Court has banned police from searching people’s uncollected trash without a warrant. Hmmm. Interesting. Although I am a strong privacy advocate, I could see the argument that if you discard something, once you put it beside the road for collection (i.e. off your property and in the public right of way) you’ve waived any rights to privacy over that material. Hmm…coulda swore that was in the gaht-damned bill of rights 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 I’ve seen them search through my recycling. I was like WTF?

U.S. Supreme Court seeks Biden views on Harvard admissions disputeThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to give its views on whether the justices should hear a challenge to Harvard University's consideration of race in undergraduate student admissions. A key case on Justices..

Hong Kong court holds first hearing for Apple Daily execsThe top editor of Hong Kong's Apple Daily pro-democracy newspaper and the head of its parent company were brought to a courthouse Saturday for their first hearing since their arrest under the city's national security law. Ryan Law, the chief editor, and Cheung Kim-hung, the CEO of Next Digital, arrived in an unmarked white van with covered windows. Three others also arrested Thursday — two Apple Daily senior editors and another executive — have not been charged yet and were released on bail late Friday pending further investigation. HK Court….😂😂🤣🤣😂😂

Court grants relief against CDC order in cruise line lawsuit with FloridaA Federal court in Tampa on Friday granted Florida a preliminary injunction against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) decision to prevent an immediate resumption of cruise operations. good luck American insanity. Still not sailing the on a cruise! Not until all cruises report back at 0%.