The federal government took the position that these provisions cannot function effectively without the individual mandate but the rest of the ACA should be allowed to survive. Notably, the federal government changed its position while the case was on appeal at the 5 th Circuit Figure 2. Next, the federal government raised new arguments about the scope of relief that the court should grant, asserting that the federal government should be enjoined from enforcing only the ACA provisions that injure the plaintiffs.
The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit it from enforcing only the ACA provisions that are found to harm the individual plaintiffs. Even though the federal government is arguing that the entire ACA should be found invalid because the individual mandate is no longer constitutional and cannot be severed from the rest of the law , the federal government does not want the Court to necessarily prevent it from still enforcing parts of the law.
Figure 2: Key dates in California v. Subsequently, the 5 th Circuit allowed four more states to intervene in the case on appeal, bringing the total number of states defending the ACA in the case to The 5 th Circuit also allowed the U.
House of Representatives to intervene in the case to defend the ACA on appeal. Figure 3: Alignment of the Parties in California v. The 5 th Circuit issued a decision finding the individual mandate unconstitutional and sending the case back to the trial court for additional analysis about whether the rest of the ACA can survive.
Figure 4 illustrates the legal questions and potential outcomes in the case. The 5 th Circuit decided that the both the individual and state plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ACA in court. Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, agreeing with the law's defenders who said by setting the tax at zero, the law effectively had no mandate because the penalty for not buying insurance was eliminated.
The ruling Wednesday ordered the trial judge to reconsider his ruling that the entire law must fall because the individual mandate was the glue that held it together. The appeals court said the Trump administration clouded the issue by changing its position.
When the case was in front of the trial judge, the Justice Department said parts of the law could be saved. But on appeal, the government agreed with the GOP officials in the states pursuing the legal case that the entire law must be declared invalid.
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. Engelhardt — heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the health law in July. Two of the Republican judges at the time suggested they may side with the lower court, which struck down the law.
King was nominated to the appeals court by President Jimmy Carter in Elrod was nominated by President George W. Bush in Engelhardt was nominated by President Donald Trump last year. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the law's individual mandate unconstitutional but in need of further analysis. Politico: Court Finds Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional, Sends Case Back To Lower Court The high-stakes ruling keeps the legal threat to Obamacare alive while reducing the likelihood the Supreme Court could render a final verdict on the law before the elections.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has little immediate practical effect because Congress already has removed the penalty for the insurance requirement as of this year.
0コメント